U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88-940 PS 2003

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION

ACT OF 1972: THE ESCALATION

OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN

THE GROWING POPULATIONS

OF MARINE MAMMALS AND

HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON THE

WEST COAST

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Tuesday, August 19, 2003, in San Diego, California

Serial No. 108-50

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Tom Cole, Oklahoma

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Rob Bishop, Utah

Devin Nunes, California

Randy Neugebauer, Texas

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas

Joe Baca, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Randy Neugebauer, Texas

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 ........................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, Prepared statement of ........................................................... 5

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses:

Anderson, Carl, Director of Public Facilities, City of Monterey, California 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Brown, Robin F., Program Leader, Marine Mammal Research, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife ................................................................. 42

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

Emerson, Frank T., Fishermen’s Alliance of California ................................ 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Everingham, Roy R. ‘‘Buck’’ Jr., Everingham Bros. Bait Co. ........................ 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22

Fletcher, Robert C., President, Sportfishing Association of California ........ 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Hanan, Dr. Doyle A., President, Hanan & Associates, Inc. .......................... 52

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54

Lecky, James, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources,

Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ........... 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37

Merryweather, Melinda, Town Councilmember, La Jolla, California .......... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Letter of clarification submitted for the record ...................................... 13

Rebuck, Steven L., Member, Sea Otter Technical Consultant Group,

Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team ............................................................ 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Stewart, Dr. Brent S., Senior Research Biologist, Hubbs-SeaWorld

Research Institute ......................................................................................... 48

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE MARINE

MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972: THE

ESCALATION OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN

THE GROWING POPULATIONS OF MARINE

MAMMALS AND HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON THE

WEST COAST

Tuesday, August 19, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

San Diego, California

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in the

Shedd Auditorium, Hubbs Sea World Research Institute, San

Diego, California, Hon. Richard W. Pombo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representative Pombo (ex officio).

Also Present: Representative Cunningham.

Mr. POMBO. I call the hearing to order. To begin with, I want to

welcome everybody here. I want to welcome my good friend, Congressman Randy ‘‘Duke’’ Cunningham, who is with us today sitting

as a member of the full committee for the purposes of this hearing.

I would like to recognize Congressman Cunningham to introduce

our first two guests.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I left Hawaii yesterday to do this, and the big island yesterday was beautiful. I saw

turtles and big manta rays, and it was beautiful. I actually went

swimming snorkeling with a dolphin that played with us, about

200 of them.

Mr. POMBO. Really?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, it was beautiful. Anyway, we are here.

Randy Treadway will offer the pledge, and he is from VFW 5431,

a veteran, and if you would stand with Mr. Treadway and offer the

pledge of allegiance.

[Pledge of Allegiance.]

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And if you would stay standing, and a good

friend, Dr. Bob Winerton—some people walk a mile for a camel,

and this guy drove all the way from Alpine just to give the prayer

this morning. Thank you, Bob.

[Invocation.]

2

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD POMBO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. POMBO. Thank you and good morning, and I am pleased to

convene this hearing this morning. Before we get started, I would

like to extend my sincere appreciation to our host, Dr. Don Kent,

president of HUBBS-Sea World Research Institute. I want to thank

Dr. Kent for graciously hosting the Committeethis week.

I also want to thank Jennifer Leblanc with the HUBBS; and

Matt Cruz, with Sea World, who have been valuable assets in organizing today’s hearing. The topic of this hearing is certainly timely.

The increased interactions between humans and sea lions, and

seals, have been in the news recently, and the Committee on Resources, specifically the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,

Wildlife and Oceans, is currently in the process of reauthorizing

the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

There have been numerous press articles about the children’s

pool in La Jolla, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the management agency for pinniped populations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, just issued fines to a number of individuals

that swam in the pool area who were trying to show that humans

and seals can coexist.

One of the swimmers was bitten by a seal, and a number of seals

stormed off the beach, which demonstrates that in these types of

situations both people and the animals can be harmed. In addition,

there have been reports that sea lions have taken over docks, sailboats, and other structures in marinas, getting into bait boxes, and

stealing fish off of lines, and out of fishing nets.

Aquaculture operations have also been adversely affected by

these animals. This hearing is being held specifically to try to determine what actions have been taken to date to minimize these

interactions, and what types of research are being undertaken by

the State and Federal management agencies to address these

issues, and what actions, if any, should be taken by Congress.

The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and

Oceans is currently reviewing the Marine Mammal Protection Act

to determine what changes need to be made during this reauthorization process.

Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest and I introduced

H.R. 2693, the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of

2003 on July 10th, 2003. Section 7 of this bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to conduct research on the non-lethal removal

and control of nuisance pinnipeds.

This hearing will better define the scope of these interaction

issues, and hopefully from the testimony, we can determine if additional changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act are necessary.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act is an interesting law, because in many ways it is more restrictive than the Endangered

Species Act. However, unlike the statute, its coverage is uniform

regardless of whether population of marine mammal species is

growing, decreasing, or stable. There is no distinction.

One of the primary goals of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

is to restore or maintain the marine mammal populations to their

3

optimum sustainable population. In addition, the MMPA requires

the same protections for all marine mammals regardless of their

population status.

Therefore, robust populations of California Sea Lions receive the

same protection as endangered Northern right whales. In the 1970s

when the MMPA was first enacted, marine mammals needed

across the board protection due to an overall declining population

numbers.

However, 30 years later that Act has been very successful in rebuilding many marine mammal stocks. While I believe there

should be protection for marine mammals, we need to find a proper

balance which allows the children of La Jolla to use their beach,

recreational fisherman to land an entire salmon, and not just part

of it, and boaters to access their vessels without being injured by

an overly aggressive sea lion.

It is obvious to me that Northern right whales, with a population

of less than 300 animals, needs to be protected. On the other hand,

robust marine mammal populations that have increased interactions with the public may be adversely affecting other marine

species should be managed differently.

We are already seeing injuries to people and increased frustrations. These frustrations could lead to actions that may harm the

marine mammals. Land-based wildlife managers have the ability to

address these types of interactions. The managers of marine mammals have a different standard.

We can have protections for marine mammals, but we need to

find an equitable solution to the problems arising from their growing populations. I look forward to hearing the testimony presented

today, and would like to recognize my friend, ‘‘Duke’’ Cunningham,

for any opening statement that he may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,

Committee on Resources

Good morning. I am pleased to convene this hearing. Before we get started I

would like to extend my sincere appreciation to our host, Dr. Don Kent, President

of Hubbs Sea World Research Institute. I want to thank Dr. Kent for graciously

hosting the Committee this week. I also want to thank Jennifer Leblanc with Hubbs

and Matt Cruz with Sea World who have been valuable assets in organizing today’s

hearing.

The topic of this hearing is certainly timely—increased interactions between humans and sea lions and seals have been in the news recently and the Committee

on Resources, specifically the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and

Oceans, is currently in the process of reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (MMPA).

There have been numerous press articles about the Children’s Pool in La Jolla.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, the management agency for pinniped populations under the MMPA, just issued fines to a number of individuals that swam

in the pool area who were trying to show that humans and seals can coexist. One

of the swimmers was bitten by a seal and a number of seals stormed off the beach,

which demonstrates that in these types of situations both people and the animals

can be harmed. In addition, there have been reports that sea lions have taken over

docks, sail boats and other structures in marinas, getting into bait boxes and stealing fish off lines and out of fishing nets. Aquaculture operations have also been adversely affected by these animals.

This hearing is being held specifically to try to determine what actions have been

taken to date to minimize these interactions; what types of research are being undertaken by the state and federal management agencies to address these issues; and

what actions, if any, should be taken by Congress.

4

The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans is currently reviewing the MMPA to determine what changes need to be made during this reauthorization process. Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest and I introduced

H.R. 2693, the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 2003, on July 10,

2003. Section 7 of this bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to conduct research on the non-lethal removal and control of nuisance pinnipeds. This hearing

will better define the scope of these interaction issues and hopefully, from the testimony, we can determine if additional changes to the MMPA are necessary.

The MMPA is an interesting law because in many ways it is more restrictive than

the Endangered Species Act. However, unlike that statute, its coverage is uniform

regardless of whether a population of marine mammal species is growing, decreasing, or stable. There is no distinction. One of the primary goals of the MMPA is to

restore or maintain marine mammal populations to their optimum sustainable population. In addition, the MMPA requires the same protections for all marine mammals regardless of their population status. Therefore, robust populations of

California sea lions receive the same protections as endangered northern right

whales.

In the 1970s when the MMPA was first enacted marine mammals needed across

the board protections due to overall declining populations numbers. However, thirty

years later the Act has been very successful in rebuilding many marine mammal

stocks. While I believe there should be protections for marine mammals, we need

to find a proper balance which allows the children of La Jolla to use their beach,

recreational fishermen to land an entire salmon, not just part of it, and boaters to

access their vessels without being injured by an overly aggressive sea lion.

It is obvious to me that Northern right whales, with a population of less than 300

animals, need to be protected. On the other hand, robust marine mammal populations that have increased interactions with the public and may be adversely affecting other marine species should be managed differently. We are already seeing injuries to people and increased frustrations. These frustrations could lead to actions

that may harm the marine mammals. Land-based wildlife managers have the ability to address these types of interactions, but managers of marine mammals have

a different standard. We can have protections for marine mammals, but we need

to find an equitable solution to the problems arising from their growing populations.

I look forward to hearing the testimony presented today and recognize Congressman Duke Cunningham for his opening statement.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman would yield for just a minute. This

is a—and I should have said this at the very beginning. This is an

official congressional hearing, and as part of the House rules, it is

not allowed to have any kind of reaction or clapping, or booing, or

anything else from the audience.

We have to maintain decorum within the room, and so therefore

I would ask the audience and the witnesses to maintain that decorum.

Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thought that they were clapping for me, Mr.

Chairman. Rich Pombo and I, and Wayne Gilchrest, are all classmates, and I have worked together with Rich for 12 years, and I

want to tell you that his heart is in the right place of protecting

our sea life and other life on this planet.

But he also looks in doing it in a fair and equitable way, and I

think that the people outside should be cheering for Chairman

Pombo, and he is here to listen, and he is here to open up remarks

to find out solutions, and I think that is fair across the board.

In my own background, as to oil drilling off the shores of

California, and that is my bill working with the Senate that stops

new leases and oil drilling. I don’t want San Diego to become another Long Beach, even though some of that is seepage until they

can prove that they can protect our shores.

5

The shark thinning bill was my bill. Rich helped me with that,

along with Wayne Gilchrest, and I read in a magazine, in a surfer

magazine on the airplane about how fishermen were taking sharks,

and cutting the fins off, and then dropping the carcass back in the

water. That’s wrong.

I am a sportsman, but I also want to protect the species. Elephants in Africa, and tigers in India, needed protection, and those

are my bills also. Probably most of you know about the tuna dolphin bill that protects not only the subspecies, the dolphin, the turtles, but also allows us to harvest mature tuna.

But I want to welcome Chairman Pombo to San Diego. I want

to tell you that we have some of the best science I think in the

world with HUBBS, and with Scripts Oceanographic, with the

Academy of Science. I am not an expert. I am here to listen.

But when we take our information and bounce it off the professional organizations that are here to protect species, I want to

thank Chairman Pombo and the rest of the folks that are here to

testify on both sides of the issue, because I think it is important.

And I am not going to reiterate what you just said, but with that,

Rich, we want to thank you to the world’s finest city, San Diego,

and you are always welcome, and we will give you a bad cup of

Navy coffee.

Mr. POMBO. Well, thank you. Any time I can leave 100 degree

weather and come down to 70 degree weather, that is OK. But I

would like to ask for unanimous consent to include in the record

the opening statement of the Subcommittee Chairman, Wayne

Gilchrest of Maryland, who originally had planned to be here at

this hearing.

Unfortunately, he had some health problems and was not able to

make the trip out. But I would like to ask for unanimous consent

to have his opening statement included in the record. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Good morning. Today’s hearing is an integral part of the reauthorization of the

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans is currently reviewing many important issues and trying

to find reasonable, science -based solutions.

There have been many articles in the press over the past few months detailing

how different marine mammal populations—California sea lions, Pacific harbor

seals and sea otters—have adversely affected fish stocks, and have overtaken public

beaches, docks at marinas and private boats. In some of the articles, there have

been references to human injuries and marine mammal injuries.

Chairman Pombo and I have introduced a bill, H.R. 2693, to reauthorize the

MMPA. As we continue to craft this legislation and look forward to a markup in

the Subcommittee in September, we will consider the need to both protect sensitive,

fragile species of marine mammals and to manage populations of marine mammals

that have successfully recovered. H.R. 2693 does contain an authorization for the

Secretary of Commerce to conduct research on the non-lethal removal and control

of nuisance pinnipeds.

This hearing will help us better understand the frustrations people are experiencing in conflicts with these plentiful animals as well as the habitat use of

California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals. I hope to more fully understand the

historical haul-out areas used by these marine mammal populations, how it compares to their current haul-outs areas and if there is a way to separate specific

areas for seals and sea lions and for human activities. Today’s testimony will help

the development of the MMPA reauthorization by identifying management of

6

human/pinniped conflict and how it has succeeded or failed in the past. This hearing

will help focus our attention on actions that have been taken to date to minimize

these interactions; what types of research are being undertaken by state and federal

management agencies to address these issues; and what actions, if any, should be

taken by Congress.

I believe there is a way to find compatibility between the needs of these marine

mammal populations and responsible human activities. I look forward to hearing

the testimony and discussing ways to resolve these issues that is satisfactory to both

the human and marine mammal populations.

Mr. POMBO. I would like to welcome our first panel here today,

and before we take testimony, it is customary that we swear in all

of the witnesses who testify before the Resources Committee. I

would like to ask you to stand and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. POMBO. Let the record show that they all answered in the

affirmative. Thank you very much. Mr. Anderson, we will begin

with you, and just one note. The lighting or the timing system,

what we do is we limit the opening, the oral testimony, to 5 minutes, and your entire written testimony will be included in the

record.

So if you could kind of summarize your prepared testimony. The

lighting system is in front of you, and the green light stays on four

4 minutes; and the yellow light comes on for 1 minute; and then

the red light comes on, and I would then have to ask you to try

to wrap it up at that point.

So, Mr. Anderson, welcome to the hearing, and when you are

ready, you can begin.

STATEMENT OF CARL ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

FACILITIES, CITY OF MONTEREY

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Pombo, and

Congressman Cunningham. It is a pleasure to be here this morning. Again, my name is Carl Anderson, and I am the director of

public facilities for the city of Monterey. I have had the privilege

of having that responsibility and being in charge of the harbor and

marina for 21 years.

The experience that the city of Monterey has had with sea lions

is beyond bizarre, and I would like to share some of those experiences with you. But first let me tell you that Monterey, like San

Diego, is also the West Coast heart of conservation. We are blessed

with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the Monterey Bay Research

Institute, and 21 other additional marine research institutions in

our area.

We are also in the heart of the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary.

So Monterey has a very special heritage in marine conservation.

Therefore, it is ironic that the city of Monterey happens to be a regional, national, and international draw for travelers and that we

should end up being the poster child for well-intended conservation

measures that have succeeded far too well.

But first of all, we have had a series of huge problems with marine mammals over the last—for approximately 18 years. The federally protected California sea lions seems to be well above the historic natural levels and well beyond the level of sustainability.

7

The rapid population growth for these animals has caused extraordinary competition for haul-out space, food, and other

resources. Our city has a resident population of sea lions on an average of about 150 that are in our community.

However, in 1990, 1997, and again this past May, we suffered extraordinarily large incursions of marine mammals, and primarily

sea lions, and primarily juvenile sea lions, that have arrived in the

numbers of somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500. We know that

Monterey is a wonderful tourist destination, but quite frankly we

can’t figure out why the sea lions want to come to Monterey every

year.

The public enjoys viewing these animals. The animals posing, I

believe, for our spectators. However, there are distinct safety, public property, and public health problems that go along with sea

lions.

The first example that I would like to call your attention to is

this area. This was early May of this year, over a 40 hour period

of time, and these young sea lions just all appeared. If you have

a copy of the testimony, there is also photographs in your packet

that you might be able to see a little bit better.

This is one of our two launch facilities, and this is a boarding

float out here, and this is Navy and Coast Guard property. I don’t

know if you are able to see the sailboats here, and the Coast Guard

boats that are covered with sea lions.

Just beyond is our city fire boat, as well as our Coast Guard response vehicles, that are so impacted with sea lions that you can

hardly get to them. So it really slows our ability to respond.

I also have some letters from neighboring businesses that were

so inundated with this problem, and particularly the stench of the

animals, that they had to close their business. It was just simply

so bad that you could not be near them.

It does not show in this picture, but at the top of the launch

ramp, we erected a fence all along the top of the bluff that is designed to keep the public or the sea lions from coming up into the

parking lot, and further up we have another fence that protects the

citizens from going down to the sea lions, because they don’t realize

that these are wild animals.

They look cuddly, and you would like to probably pet them. But

we know what can happen when that happens. We have had problems with them jumping en masse on to the docks, and if you could

put that one up, please. This is in the Monterey marina.

You will notice that they are all very shiny and that means that

they just got out of the water. We had cleared this dock by having

a person go down, and what we use is a tether ball on a pole, and

we swing it around, and that seems to bother them, and as you do

it more and you bounce it on the dock, they will eventually get off.

But as soon as you leave, within 5 minutes they are back. So it

just continues to be a problem. They have shown very aggressive

behavior, and they have physically damaged our docks. This happens to be a whole new marina that we rebuilt. Our earlier additions of this was wood.

They would break off water faucets, and they would knock off

electrical panels. These are electrical panels, and if the big ones

lean against those, they can break them over. This is a wooden

8

whaler on the side of a concrete dock. Too much weight and they

actually can flex that and break it.

And obviously when you have a situation like that, it denies access for the public to their own boats. They have chased boaters,

and they have chased our staff. I will show you some of that a little

bit later.

Fortunately, we have had lots of pant leg nips, but very few actual bites. These vessels actually belong to the Navy. They are the

Naval Postgraduate’s sailing club. Those are wooden shields and

you can see the water line right there.

Unfortunately, the Navy erected these barriers along the docks

that keeps them off the docks, and it makes it very difficult to get

to the boat, but it also—it didn’t protect their vessels in time, and

I don’t know how they ever cleaned those vessels. It is beyond recognition.

The next photograph depicts outer harbor moorings. The sea

lions are very athletic and they have the ability to jump on the

boats, and this was a very pristine vessel, and it is difficult to see

all the gray streaks and so on. You will see a little more about that

vessel in a minute.

The next vessel, a 26-foot trimaran, was out on a mooring, and

approximate 600 to 800 sea lions got on that vessel and sunk it.

Fortunately, we were able to refloat it, and bring it to the marina,

and the owner was able to clean it up, and put it back into service.

The next one documents our dinghy dock. As you can see one

sunk dinghy right here, and what happened is that this entire area

had approximately 40 dinghies. The sea lions decided that they

would rest on the dinghies, and sunk every one of them, and did

damage.

We actually had to pump them out, and put the dinghies up on

the dock, and now they are on top of the dinghies which are upside

down. So, again if you have a boat on a mooring, you can’t get to

your dinghy to get out to the mooring.

The next one is a particular aggressive mammal, and he is about

50 yards away from the water, and he had come up on a launch

ramp, and this is one of our harbor maintenance crew. By the way

the only reason he allowed me to use this photograph is because

you can’t see his face.

He is in fact running away from that sea lion because he went

out to try to shoo it back into the water, and it charged him. This

guy is about 6 foot 5, about 300 pounds, and if you look closely,

both feet are off the ground.

We eventually had two staff member—he got all the way out to

Del Monte Avenue, and if you know Monterey, that is a major thoroughfare, and you can imagine the problems that could have created for both himself and traffic. We were eventually able to shoo

him back into the water.

The next one is—I don’t have polite words to describe this, but

that was a sailboat that I told you was pristine, and this is the

cockpit, and please notice the tiller has been broken off, and that

is a combination of fecal matter and vomit. Again, it is not a very

pretty picture, and if that was your boat or my boat, I think you

would be very, very unhappy.

9

The next photograph is an unfortunate one. This is a dead sea

lion, and he is a relatively young male. We are at the present time

collecting between 5 and 10 sea lions a day that we dispose of that

are dead.

We believe that some of them are diseased, and some of them are

malnourished, and they are dying at an alarming rate. The next

one that we have is one of our more bizarre photographs. This is

the hull of a large commercial fishing boat that was out on a mooring, and the sea lion got up in the boat, and managed to fall into

the hold. This is an 800 pound sea lion.

We had friends from three mammal groups using a cargo net

that we eventually got around the sea lion, and hauled him out. It

is not the kind of thing that you want to get involved in daily.

For the past 12 weeks we have been spending on an average of

$2,000 to $3,000 per week just in staff time cleaning up after the

sea lions. There are extreme public property issues, and public

safety issues, and health impacts. Since 1990, we can document

over a million dollars in costs that these sea lions have caused in

damage to property, lost business, and staff cleaning up from the

mess that is left.

In my opinion, there must be some non-lethal measure that can

be put in place to bring the population of the sea lions under control. More aggressive, but not injurious, management means should

be legalized. We are operators. We are not scientists, and we would

look to the scientific community to please develop a method to help

us control these problems. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

Statement of Carl Anderson, Director of Public Facilities,

City of Monterey, California

Chairman Pombo, Members of the Committee, Congressman Cunningham: My

name is Carl Anderson and I am the Director of Public Facilities for the City of

Monterey. I have been responsible for our harbor and marina for 21 years. I appreciate being afforded the opportunity to speak about the City’s experiences with

California sea lions.

The Monterey Bay region is a west-coast center of ocean conservation. We are the

home of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and another twenty-one marine science institutes. We are at the heart of the

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Monterey Bay and adjacent waters have

rich fishing grounds that still support a fishing heritage, which contributes to the

economy of our City.

It is, therefore, ironic, that our City, which draws regional, national and international travelers to experience the wonders of our coast and bay, should also be

the poster child for a well intended conservation measure—which has succeeded too

well. What began as an effort to protect marine mammals now has created a huge

new set of problems for sea lions, and for our community. Federally protected

California sea lions seem to be well above historic natural levels and well above sustainability. The rapid population growth of these animals has caused a competition

for haul-out space and for food for which there are no real winners.

The City always has a resident population of sea lions in our waterfront area that

number about 150 animals, year round. In 1990, 1997 and again beginning last

May, we experienced even larger incursions of these animals which brought between

1,000 to 1,500 animals into our waterfront, the majority of which appear to be pups.

We don’t know why they come here, unless they’ve heard what a wonderful place

Monterey is to visit.

While there is no doubt the public enjoys viewing these animals at a distance, the

animals pose distinct safety, property damage and public health problems. These

problems far outweigh any public benefit.

10

1. We have had problems with up to 700 sea lions taking over one of our two public launching ramps. The problem was so severe that we had to close the launch

ramp to the public, which in turn affected several businesses that operate in the

launch ramp area. When the public went away, these businesses withered for about

a month. (attachment 1, 2)

2. We also have problems with the animals jumping up in-mass onto our docks.

Sometimes their aggressive behavior denies public passage for people to get to their

boats. The sea lions have physically damaged our docks by their weight, breaking

the wood components. They have chased our boaters. We’ve had numerous torn

pantlegs, but luckily, only a few bites. The fact that there are so many sea lions

has caused the animals to haul out onto boats and docks, places they would not normally rest on. (attachment 3)

3. We have also had problems with sea lions boarding and sometimes sinking vessels. (attachment 4, 5) One such vessel, a 26-foot trimaran (then on a mooring, now

raised), was sunk last month by about 100 sea lions. (attachment 6)

4. We have had 40 of our small dinghies sunk or damaged by the sea lions. (attachment 7)

5. Animals sometimes actually go up to our public walking trail and streets, posing significant dangers to the public, as these animals can be quite aggressive. (attachment 8)

6. Both the Coast Guard and our City Fire boat have had their essential missions

compromised by the large number of animals that are in the way, causing delays

to the crews trying to get down to their boats.

7. Fishermen have had significant impacts from the sea lions. Losses to fishermen

affect the economy of our City. I know that others will speak to this today.

8. When sea lions go up onto our launch ramps, docks, boats and the recreational

trail, they pose significant health hazards. They defecate and vomit parasites wherever they go. The stench in any area after even a few hours is nearly overwhelming.

The water quality in our harbor is very poor when the animals are present. (attachment 9, 10)

9. Many of the animals appear to be sick or starving. Our crews are removing

5 to 10 dead sea lions a day from our waterfront area. (attachment 11) For the past twelve weeks the City of Monterey has been spending $2,000 to $3,000 per week to try to avert the most extreme property, public safety, and health

impacts from these animals. Since 1990, City and private costs related to sea lion

problems exceed one million dollars. For our current problem, we have no idea if,

or when, this problem will end. Since they are a Federally protected marine mammal, we have very limited means available to us to discourage the animals from

coming up onto public areas.

It is my opinion that some non-lethal measures must be put into place to bring

the sea lion population under control. More aggressive, but non-injurious, management means should be legalized. We must look to the scientific community for answers. If we do not take action, I suggest that we will surrender a significant portion of the West Coast’s waterfront, and fishery resources, to these animals, overtime.

I want to thank the Committeefor their time and I am available to answer any

of the committee’s questions.

Thank you.

[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Anderson’s statement have been retained in the

Committee’s official files.]

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Ms. Merryweather.

STATEMENT OF MELINDA MERRYWEATHER, TOWN

COUNCILMEMBER, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. Good morning. My name is Melinda

Merryweather, and I am here speaking on behalf of my community

of La Jolla, and I want to thank you all for letting me speak. I have

lived in La Jolla for most of my life, and I am a member of the

town council, and served on the parks and beaches committees, and

helped to write a community plan, and I am an environmentalist.

La Jolla is a small, older historic community, and in 1931 Ellen

Browning Scripps saw the need in our village to create a safe place

11

for children, and the elderly, and the handicapped to learn to swim

in the ocean.

There was so great a need for this in our community that she spent $60 thousand, which was a huge amount of money in those

days. She was granted permission to take a small area of the beach

and it was similar to a tide pool at that time, and erect a large

carved curved wall with openings in it, and it had flue ways in it.

We now had the only man-made beach on the entire coast of

California. There was a parade, a dedication, and a piece of legislation was created that called out and placed certain conditions on

this man-made beach.

It stated that said land shall be devoted exclusively to public

park, bathing pool for children, parkway, playground, and for recreational purposes. I feel that this legislation should still be honored today.

This was the first document in the State of California that talks

about beach access, and maybe the first loss of beach access in the

State of California. My grandmother swam at the children’s pool,

as did my mother, and I learned to swim in the ocean there, and

I taught my son to swim there, and now I want to teach my granddaughter to swim there.

People and wildlife existed for over 70 years in this area in perfect harmony. In 1972, the MMPA came into effect to protect the

seals, and for 25 years even though that was in effect, we still

swam and used the beaches as usual, even though the law was in

effect.

In 1997 the beach was closed and declared a natural haul out

site by NOAA due to fecal pollution levels caused by the seals and

the beach was closed. Our community is now dealing with a totally

confusing message of enforcement.

No wonder the top marine biologists at the National Marine

Fisheries warned the city 10 years ago do not let the seals come

on to a public populated beach. He was very clear about that. We

all must know by now that as soon as man interferes with nature,

we blow it every time. It never fails. This is a clear case of man

interfering with nature that allowed this to happen.

Last week, I went around the corner from the children’s pool to

the cove beach, and I saw people practically sitting on top of each

other, and there were so many people crowded on to that little

beach. And I sent over to the children’s pool and there were no children and there were no seals. There was nothing.

I think this is a pathetic waste of a wonderful resource, and I

think it is an insult to the accepted gift of Ellen Browning Scripps.

Some people say that it is along the lines of if you had a pack of

coyotes who took over a neighborhood soccer field, would we all

stand back and say that’s find and let them have it?

As a matter of fact, let’s create a legislative Act that protects

them. It would never happen. This is a problem that is so out of

hand that it has made it to the cartoon section of national newspapers, national spoof t.v., Tom Brokaw, the New York Times. This

is a situation that has to be corrected.

We were even asked this year to perhaps not do the fireworks

in La Jolla because it would disturb the seals. It is a depressing

situation, and we have seal feces, dead seal carcasses, polluted

12

water, foul air, with airborne diseases, injured seals, but no one is

allowed to help, and buried seals, and trash that can’t be removed.

We have even tried to clean the beach up and we have asked if

we can go down and take the seal feces off the beach so you can

at least sit close to the beach, and we have been told that we can’t

touch it.

All of this is due to Level B harassment guidelines of the MMPA.

We are asking you to amend the MMPA in a way that allows municipal governments the opportunity to prevent seals from taking

over a populated, heavily used, public beach. We would like to retain our original status as a public populated man-made beach

park with the children’s pool.

I want to remind you that the children’s pool is a man-made

beach. It is not a natural anything. It is a man-made beach. That

was a tide pool before the wall was put up. We have lived and

swam at this pristine beach and gentle water access with the seals

for over 80 years.

Let the seals and the people co-exist like they always have, in

a healthy environment, of equilibrium, and please restore the clean

air and clear water, and our beach access. This could be all accomplished by restoring the children’s pool to a public beach status,

and removing the stipulations that go with the natural haul out

status, which clearly it is not.

This could eliminate the expensive and ridiculous lifelong policing problem forever, and this is an enormous policing problem. I

know that it costs the city a ton of money. It is so ridiculous to me

that this is even happening.

And this picture here shows that this is what we are going to

lose. This sits empty. This whole entire area here in La Jolla sits

empty today. No children, no seals, no nothing. It is just a smelly,

dirty, horrible spot, and I think it is—and it is also to me one of

the important things is being part of the surf world is that it is the

first time that I have ever been denied access to go in the ocean,

and I think that it is our constitutional right to go in the ocean.

And this may be the first case of that being prevented, and I

think that is something that we can’t allow to happen. Thank you

for your time, and I really appreciate you guys listening to this. It

is a huge issue, and I am here for any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Merryweather follows:]

Statement of Melinda Merryweather, Town Councilmember,

La Jolla, California

My name is Melinda Merryweather. I am here speaking on behalf of my community of La Jolla. Thank you for letting me speak.

I have lived in La Jolla most of my life. I am a member of the Town Council,

serve on the Parks and Beaches Committee, and helped to write our community

plan, and I am an environmentalist.

La Jolla is a small older historic community which truly is one of the most beautiful communities on the entire coast.

In 1931, Ellen Browning Scripps saw the need in the village to create a safe place

for children, elderly and the handicapped to learn to swim in the ocean. The need

was so great she spent $60,000. which was a huge amount of money in those days.

She was granted permission to take a small area of beach- similar to a tide pooland erect a large curved wall with openings in it. We now had the only man-made

beach on the entire coast of California.

There was a parade, a dedication and a piece of legislation was created that called

out and placed certain conditions on this man-made beach. It stated—‘‘That said

13

lands shall be devoted exclusively to public park, bathing pool for children, parkway,

playground and for recreational purposes.’’

This legislation still should be honored.

This was the first document in the State of California that talks about beach access and may be the first loss of beach access in California.

My grandmother swam at the Children’s Pool as did my mother. I learned to

swim in the ocean there, I taught my son to swim there and now I want to teach

my granddaughter to swim there.

People and wildlife existed for over 70 years in perfect harmony.

In 1972 the MMPA came into effect to protect the seals But for 25 years—we still

swam and used the beach as usual even though it was in effect.

Then in 1997 the beach was closed and declared a natural haul out site by NOAA

due to the high pollution levels caused by the seals.

Our community is now dealing with totally confusing messages of enforcement.

No wonder the top Marine Biologist at National Marine Fisheries warned the city

10 years ago not to let seals start to come onto a public populated beach. We all

must know by now that as soon as man interferes with nature we blow it. It never

fails. This is a clear case of man interfering with nature.

Last week I went to the Cove Beach—a small beach next to the Children’s Pool.

It was packed with people all but sitting on top of each other, and at the Children’s

Pool—not a soul. No people. No children no seals.

This is a pathetic waste of a wonderful resource. This is an insult to the accepted

gift of Ellen Browning Scripps.

Imagine if you had a pack of coyotes who took over a neighborhood soccer field.

Would we all stand back and say that’s fine let them have it. Matter of fact, let’s

create a legislative Act that protects them!

It would never happen. This is a problem that is so out of hand it has made it

to the cartoon sections of national newspapers, National spoof tv, Tom Brokaw, and

The New York Times. This is a situation that has to be corrected—We were even

asked to consider having a permit for our fireworks this year so as not to disturb

the seals.

It is a depressing situation. We have seal feces, dead seal carcasses, polluted

water, foul air with airborne diseases, injured seals that no one is allowed to help,

buried seals and trash that cannot be removed. All due to the Level B harassment

guidelines of the MMPA.

We are asking you to amend the MMPA in a way that allows municipal government the opportunity to prevent seals from taking over a populated heavily used,

public beach.

And we would like to retain our original status as a public, populated man-made

beach park at the Children’s Pool. We have lived and swam at this pristine beach

and gentle water access with the seals for over 80 years. Let the seals and the people co-exist like they always have in a healthy environment of equilibrium and

please restore the clean air, the clean water, and our beach access.

This could all be accomplished by restoring the Children’s Pool to a public beach

status and remove the stipulations that go with a Natural Haul out status—which

it clearly is not. This could eliminate the expensive, ridiculous lifelong policing problem forever and return this huge and wonderful resource to our community.

Thank you for taking the time to listen and to be here. I am available for any

questions.

[The following letter was submitted for the record by Ms.

Merryweather to clarify her testimony:]

AUGUST 29, 2003

Dear Chairman Pombo and Committee Members

I was one of the speakers at the field hearing on August 19th in San Diego.

I am writing to amend the statements that I made under oath during the questioning after my statement. During the questioning I was asked whether I had spoken to the seal supporters, and who they were. At the time I said they were a

kinder and gentler group, and then said that Hubbs-Sea World had been involved

in the beginning of the docent program. I would like to clarify that the Hubbs-Sea

World was in no way ever involved in any seal support group that has been aggressive, and is not part of the group that is now currently patrolling the Children’s

Pool.

14

Secondly, I was recently speaking with Michelle Zetwo, one of the enforcement officers of the San Diego area for the MMPA. She mentioned that I should get my

facts straight about an incident I mentioned regarding the surfer that had to use

the Children’s Pool beach to swim in after he had lost his board. The statement I

made was that he had received a citation for $100, when, in actuality, he received

a warning. I would like to have this information in the record.

Thank you.

MELINDA MERRYWEATHER

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Mr. Fletcher.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. FLETCHER, PRESIDENT,

SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. FLETCHER. Good morning, Chairman Pombo and Congressman Cunningham. My name is Bob Fletcher, and I am the president of the Sportfishing Association of California, known as SAC.

SAC is a non-profit political organization that for over 30 years has

represented the interests of the commercial passenger fishing vessel fleet in Southern California.

The SAC fleet carries close to 750,000 passengers a year on 175

different sportfishing boats. I am also here today representing the

interests of the members of the Golden Gate Fishman’s Association

from San Francisco, and the members of the Recreational Fishing

Alliance nationwide.

SAC, GDFA, and RFA, are deeply grateful to you, Congressman

Pombo and Congressman Cunningham, and Subcommittee

Chairman Gilchrest for agreeing to hold this field hearing in order

to hear testimony on the crisis, and I say again crisis, facing anglers in California from the growing populations of pinnipeds on

the West Coast.

The population of California sea lions and Pacific Harbor seals

continues to grow, and individual animals continue to grow more

aggressive in their interactions with anglers, boaters, swimmers,

and crews, and we need your help through changes in the Marine

Mammal Protection Act to begin to take control of this terrible

problem we face.

Over the years the SAC organization has spent literally tens of

thousands of dollars and much of its time in an effort to find and

develop an effective, non-lethal deterrent device that will allow

members of the SAC fleet to be able to co-exist with these growing

hordes of problem pinnipeds.

One particular unit developed by a company here in San Diego

showed real promise. The company, known as Pulse Power Technologies, Incorporated, had made an experimental deterrent device

that appeared to deter the sea lions, while not affecting fishing.

With the help of NOAA fishery staff in the Southwest region, we

applied to the California Coastal Commission to get approval to

begin that sea testing to determine how effective it might be. We

never got on the water with that unit.

The coastal commission voted down our request and denied our

application for at-sea testing. The commission in essence ignored

the pleas of the fishing industry in favor of pinniped populations

which are now believed to be above historic levels.

15

If we are ever able to get control of this problem, we need to stop

bending over backwards to protect exploding sea lion populations

and try to find some reasonable methods to control their attacks on

our citizens.

I say attacks and they continue to occur and I will go into some

detail. A clear example comes from Central California. The

harbormaster of Port San Luis stated that sea lions had invaded

their docks, and when approached the sea lions would growl at us,

and even sometimes charge toward us if we get too close.

The harbor staff has tried to deter the creatures, but after a few

days of squirting water, making noise, yelling, clapping hands,

throwing soft projectiles and the likes, the mammals ignore us and

don’t leave the docks. Clearly a case where if there is no pain, you

have no gain.

As many marine mammal experts agree, that unless you can approach the pain threshold with your deterrence, you cannot effectively deter these intelligent animals. To make these matters

worse, increasingly aggressive California sea lions have more recently began to attack members of the public.

A swimmer off Port San Luis was bitten in the calf by a sea lion.

He received a 3 inch laceration on the back of his leg. A fisherman

was attacked when a sea lion swam aboard his boat. The animal

bit him in the thigh, causing a significant injury.

A sea lion came out of the water and bit a crew member in the

hand while the individual was walking down the dock carrying a

fish. Finally, there was a recent case of a seal lion at a sport fishing dock that was preventing passengers from boarding the boat.

As a passenger would approach the sea lion would jump out of

the water, bearing its teeth, and preventing the angler from boarding. It took 20 minutes to drive the animal away. NOAA Fisheries

needs to be given legal authority to changes in the MMPA to take

actions to identify and then effectively deter these problem animals, so as to again put the fear of man into them, allowing our

citizens to co-exist with these very abundant populations, and once

again allow them to enjoy their ocean experience.

In closing, SAC wants to compliment Congressman Gilchrest and

Congressman Pombo on the introduction of H.R. 2693, which

would require the Secretary to conduct research on the non-lethal

removal and control of nuisance pinnipeds.

As the California State government is currently in fiscal meltdown, our only hope is that the Federal Government can work to

find some reasonable way to once again allow us to enjoy our West

Coast ocean waters without the constant harassment by these

hordes of aggressive nuisance pinnipeds. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fletcher follows:]

Statement of Robert Fletcher, President,

Sportfishing Association of California

Dear Chairman Gilchrest & Members:

My name is Robert Fletcher, and I am the President of the Sportfishing Association of California (SAC). SAC is a non-profit political organization that for over thirty years has been representing the interests of the commercial passenger fishing

vessel (CPFV) fleet in southern California. The SAC fleet of vessels runs local and

long-range sportfishing, sport diving and natural history excursions, and carries

close to 750,000 passengers a year, and the SAC live bait harvesting boats provide

16

live bait to the sportfishing fleet and to the huge private boat fleet that fishes off

the California coast.

SAC is deeply grateful to House Resources Committee Chairman Pombo, and to

Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest, for agreeing to hold this field hearing in order

to receive testimony on the crisis facing the marine fishing & boating community.

California sea lions and pacific harbor seals continue to grow in numbers and in the

aggressiveness with which they harass sport and commercial fishermen, sport divers, swimmers and boat owners. These robust populations of pinnipeds are resulting

in some animals that are out of control, and we need your help to find ways to cope

with these aggressive problem animals

For many years, SAC has spent money and time in an effort to find and develop

an effective, non-lethal deterrent device that will allow members of the SAC fleet

to be able to ‘‘co-exist’’ with the increasing hordes of pinnipeds. One particular unit,

developed by a company here in San Diego, initially showed real promise. The company, known as Pulse Power Technologies, Inc., had made an experimental deterrent device that appeared to deter sea lions without scaring away the fish. With the

help of NOAA Fisheries staff in the southwest region, we attempted to get approval

from the California Coastal Commission to begin at-sea testing to determine how

effective it might be.

Unfortunately, the Coastal Commission disagreed with our application and denied

our request for a consistency determination, stating that the unit could potentially

harm a marine mammal. The Commission, in essence, ignored the pleas of the fishing industry in favor of pinniped populations that are now believed to be above historic levels. If we are ever to get control of this interaction problem, we need to stop

bending over backward to protect these exploding populations of marine mammals

and try to find some reasonable methods to control their attacks on our use of our

ocean and its resources.

The Harbormaster in Port San Luis, in comments I have attached to my testimony, stated that, ‘‘When approached, the sea lions will growl at us and even sometimes charge towards us if we get too close’’..The Harbor staff has tried to ‘‘deter’’

these creatures, but after a few days of squirting water, making noise, yelling, clapping hands, throwing soft projectiles and the likes, these mammals ignore us and

do not leave the docks.’’ Clearly a case of no pain, no gain, and many marine biologists agree that unless you approach the pain threshold, you cannot effectively deter

these animals.

To make matters worse, increasingly aggressive CA sea lions have more recently

begun to attack members of the public. A swimmer off Port San Luis was bitten

in the calf by a sea lion. He received a three-inch laceration on the back of his leg.

A fisherman was attacked while seated in his boat. The animal bit into his thigh

causing a significant injury. A sea lion came out of the water and bit a crewmember

in the hand while the individual was walking down the dock carrying a fish. Finally,

there was a recent case of a sea lion at a sportfishing dock that was preventing passengers from walking down a dock to a sportfishing boat. As a passenger would approach the boat the sea lion would jump out of the water, baring his teeth at the

individual, preventing him from boarding. It took 20 minutes to scare the animal

away.

Clearly, the competition between individuals of this exploding CA sea lion population is forcing some animals to modify their behavior in ways that threaten man’s

enjoyment of the ocean environment. You will hear from marine mammal experts

that the majority of the conflicts stem from a small number of ‘‘problem’’ animals,

and unless Congress begins to understand the threat posed by these ‘‘bad boys’’, the

attacks will continue and perhaps become truly life threatening. NOAA Fisheries

needs to be given the authority to take actions to effectively deter these problem

animals, to again put the fear of man into them, so that our citizens can co-exist

with these abundant populations of CA sea lions and Pacific harbor seals.

In closing, I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest for introducing

H.R. 2693, and Chairman Pombo for agreeing to this hearing. On behalf of the

sportfishing industry I want to specifically support Section 7 of Congressman

Gilchrest’s bill, which requires the Secretary to conduct research on the nonlethal

removal and control of nuisance pinnipeds. As California state government is currently in fiscal meltdown, our only hope is that the federal government can work

to find some reasonable way to once again allow us to enjoy our west coast ocean

waters without the constant harassment by the hordes of nuisance pinnipeds.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Mr. Emerson

17

STATEMENT OF FRANK T. EMERSON,

FISHERMEN’S ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. EMERSON. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. My name is Frank

Emerson, and I am the President of Fishermen’s Alliance of

California, a group that is a combination of commercial, recreational, and industry representatives of the fishing industry.

Thank you for the chance to present with you our position on the

Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization. It is our belief

that the California sea lion, and the Harbor seal numbers are

above historical populations, and that this condition is having an

adverse effect on marine resources and the fishing industry.

We define the fishing industry in the broadest sense. Our group

includes commercial, recreational, and charter vessel operators.

Our definition must also include the businesses that depend on sea

food harvests for food and for sport, from the hotels that house

weekend anglers, to the largest processing plants.

Fishing supports businesses that are interwoven throughout our

economy, and countless jobs rest on its health. In our view it is

nothing less than irresponsible to give unreasonably high levels of

protection to over-abundant marine mammals in favor of critically

important resources.

A desire to be humane and afford safety to these marine mammals is shared by fishers and non-fishers alike. After all, the appreciation of the ocean’s beauty and bounty is what lures us to a

life at sea in the first place.

It certainly is not the promise of cushy hours and great benefits.

We do not feel that it is desirable or humane to let this population

of sea lions and seals grow unchecked until an inevitable crash,

and from the testimony that you heard earlier, an occurring decline

as we speak due to disease and starvation.

At a recent presentation in Monterey, California, by sea lion experts, Robert DeLong of NOAA’s northwest region, stated that the

current numbers are probably the highest they have been in over

3,000 years. How is this possible? Haven’t we all heard about the

seal hunters that nearly wiped them out?

Yes, over-hunting did occur, but sealing has been banned for over

a century. What changed is that prior to the sealing years, Native

Americans harvested them routinely and provided a balancing factor. The major difference is the lack of human harvest after the

ban on sea lions.

For native hunters it was as normal as going to the grocery

store. They depended on marine mammals for not only food, but

bones served as their tools, furs as warm clothing, and intestines

for lashings, and even the flippers were used for boot soles. They

used the whole animal.

So humans were absolutely an integral part of the environment

that the marine mammals existed in for centuries. Sea lion researchers know this from investigation of Native Indian dig sites,

and what they call the mittens, and in these refuse areas, the fossilized bones of these marine mammals are found.

Also, by displacing man as a natural predator, as well as grizzly

bears and wolves, which no longer prowl our coast lines, the growth

rate of 6 percent doubles the population approximately every 8 to

9 years.

18

The current estimate of the population of California sea lions is

around 240,000 animals, which does not take into account the

Mexican population. What will twice that number mean to our fish

docks if this population doubles again in 8 or 9 more years? What

will our beaches look like then?

What will it mean to the sea lions? It is no different than deer

populations that exceed the available food supply. They will all suffer. Is it not the intention of the Act to reduce the amount of suffering to marine mammals?

The critical flaw that we perceive in the MMPA is a faulty and

an unworkable definition of optimum sustainable population. This

concept legislates a population increase without acknowledging a

host of biological and historical factors to curb populations.

Reauthorization of the Act is the perfect opportunity to thoughtfully acknowledge the reality of marine ecosystems, and predatorprey dynamics. We must accept that man is integral to the environment, and has always had an impact on marine mammals.

It is our position that to try and ensure complete protection from

one species over another is not only impossible, but it is inherently

flawed. The majority of fishermen impacted by sealing degradation

would rather not try to have to discourage their behavior by shooting at them.

It takes time out from your daily work, and it is a hassle, and

it is dangerous, and it is also not very effective because it is actually hard to shoot from a moving boat. This at one time was allowed to try to prevent this behavior and it did serve the purpose

of keeping marine mammals afraid of man, and discourage this behavior.

But we would rather have non-lethal deterrence developed as

others have spoken, and keep the populations in balance with the

marine environment. It is our position that people should be able

to protect their property from degradation, and that is a private

property rights issue.

But from a resource management standpoint, we ask for population control through humane methods to maintain a balance consistent with those historical numbers. There is hardly a fisherman

along our coast that cannot recount tales of fish lost to seals or sea

lions, and I would just like to recount a story that I just heard recently.

I was talking to someone on my way up here actually. He was

out fishing off of Monterey Bay for halibut with his son, and his

son’s friend, and a sea lion actually jumped in the boat with them,

menacing the passengers, and a crew member or the captain of the

vessel had an aluminum baseball bat that he uses to dispatch a

halibut when they catch one.

They tried to shoosh this animal off the boat, and it kept aggressively pursuing the guy in the bow of the boat. So he is backing

up and he is panicking, and it is a very tense situation. So he finally hits the animal in the body, and it is only momentarily deterred. It just kind of whirls around and looks at him briefly, and

turns back and continues to charge the man on the bow. o he

swings again, and again the same response, just a momentary hesitation by the animal. Again it pursues the man on the bow of the

boat. So finally he hits it as hard as he can in the head, and the

19

seat collapses on the boat. Now he has got a situation that he feels

terrible about.

He does the right thing and he calls the Coast Guard and they

are only 10 minutes from the dock. He reports that he has a man

injured, because the person has been scratched and is bleeding

from his stomach, and requests medical assistance.

He drives immediately to the Coast Guard pier, and he is met

by four seaman, one packing a sidearm, and instead of assisting

the person injured, they immediately grill him for 5 minutes about

how the sea lion was killed.

The captain became so incensed that he says that I have got a

person injured here, and they refused to look at, and he requested

that medical assistance be available. A more senior officer finally

came down to the dock, and rebuked the junior officer, and saw to

it that the person was treated, and apparently has written a report

that we are trying to get.

He went to the Coast Guard office yesterday and asked for a copy

and they said we don’t have any copies and we don’t know what

you are talking about. So we are going to track this down. So in

any case, that is just a clear example of what our priorities have

been misapplied. It is really very discouraging. Thank you very

much for listening to my testimony today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Emerson follows:]

Statement of Frank T. Emerson, President,

Fisherman’s Alliance of California

Thank you for the chance to present you with our position on the Marine Mammal

Protection Act reauthorization. It is our belief that California Sea Lion and Harbor

Seal numbers are above historical populations, and that this condition is having an

adverse effect on marine resources and the fishing industry. We define the fishing

industry in the broadest sense, our group includes commercial, recreational and

charter vessel operators. Our definition must include the businesses that depend on

seafood harvest for food or sport, from the hotels that house weekend anglers to the

largest processing plants. Fishing supports businesses that are interwoven throughout our economy, and countless jobs rest on its health. In our view it is nothing less

than irresponsible to give unreasonably high levels of protection to over abundant

marine mammals in favor of critically important resources.

A desire to be humane and afford safety to marine mammals is shared by fishers

and non-fishers alike. After all, the appreciation of the Oceans beauty and bounty

is what lures us to a life at sea. It certainly isn’t the promise of cushy hours and

great benefits. But we do not feel it is desirable or humane to let this population

of Sea Lions and Seals grow unchecked to until an inevitable crash. A point of carrying capacity will be reached and disease and starvation will kill thousands at a

time.

At a recent presentation in Monterey Ca. by Sea Lion experts, Robert DeLong of

NOAA’s northwest region, stated that current numbers are probably the highest

they have been in over three thousand years. How is this possible? Haven’t we all

heard about the seal hunters that nearly wiped them out? Yes, over hunting did

occur, but sealing has been banned for over a century. What changed is that prior

to the sealing years Native Americans harvested them routinely and provided a crucial balancing factor. The major difference is the lack of human harvest after the

ban on sealing. For Native hunters it was as normal as going to the grocery store.

They depended on marine mammals for not only food, but bones served as tools,

furs as warm clothing, intestines for lashings and even the flippers were turned into

boot soles. So humans were absolutely an integral part of the environment that marine mammals existed in. Sea Lion researchers know this from investigation of Native Indian archeological dig sites. In the refuse areas around the camps the fossilized bones of many types of marine mammals are found.

By displacing man as a natural predator, and removing other land based carnivores such as Grizzly Bears and Wolves, etc., the stage was set for our coastline

to experience a steady growth rate of 6%, or a doubling every 9 years. The researchVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:39 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88940.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
20

ers currently estimate the population of Ca. Sea Lions at around 240,000 animals.

What will twice that number mean to our fish stocks? What will it mean to the Sea

Lions? It is no different than deer populations that exceed the available food supply,

they will suffer.

Is it not the intention of the Act to reduce the amount of suffering of marine

mammals? The critical flaw that we perceive in the MMPA is a faulty and unworkable definition of ‘‘Optimum Sustainable Population’’. This concept legislates a population increase without acknowledging a host of biological and historical factors that

curbed population. The reauthorization of the Act is the perfect opportunity to

thoughtfully acknowledge the reality of marine eco-systems and predator/prey dynamics. We must accept that man is integral to the environment and has always

had an impact on marine mammals. It is our position that to try and insure complete protection for one species over another is not only impossible, it is inherently

flawed.

The majority of fishermen impacted by Sea Lion depredation would rather not

have to try to discourage the animals’ behavior by shooting at them. We would rather have non-lethal deterrents developed and keep the populations in balance with

the marine environment. It is our position that people should be able to protect

their property from depredation, and that is a private property rights issue. From

a resource management standpoint we ask for population control through humane

methods to maintain a balance consistent with historical numbers.

There is hardly one fisherman along our coast who cannot recount tales of fish

lost to sea lions or seals. The salmon trollers in Monterey Bay at times have to quit

fishing completely because every fish hooked is lost to sea lions that follow close behind. This fluctuates with the time of the year and how many fish are being caught.

When fishing is fast and furious you stand a better chance of landing the fish

hooked. On average or slow days the sea lions will eat nearly every salmon hooked

before you have a chance of landing them. When considering the impact to charter

fishing operators the losses can be difficult to quantify yet are equally devastating.

The fuel and time lost due to relocating away from sea lions, the captain working

hard to find a productive spot only to be found by sea lions again. Customers will

call the business and ask if the sea lions are ‘‘in’’, and if so they will not book a

trip. Why make the drive, some are coming from communities a half days drive

away, only to be robbed of the fish you work hard to catch? It is impossible to calculate the true loss to the sport fishing industry due to discouraged clients. The

same is true for private boaters with sizable investments in boats and equipment.

How can we break the cycle of rogue animals that learn this unnatural feeding

behavior? We have been obtaining small grants from local State F&G commissions

for almost 8 years now to fund studies conducted by Moss Landing Marine Labs.

These were sometimes matched by other agencies and include interactions between

fishers and sea lions, dietary analysis and population monitoring. These were all

conducted by MLML under the direction and oversight of Dr. Jim Harvey PhD.

In our current study the goal is to learn exactly what triggers a sea lion to locate

a hooked salmon, meaning the hydro-acoustic and visual signals. This was dubbed

the ‘‘Cues Project’’ and the field observations were begun this year in Monterey Bay.

Using underwater digital video cameras and hydro-acoustic recordings we hope to

be able to devise technology that can deter such human and sea lion interactions.

This would be a win/win in our estimation, good for the fishers and good for the

sea lions. If such technology is developed to the level of practical application it could

be made available for the commercial sector as well as the recreational. If the depredation activity is continuously discouraged those animals that have never learned

the behavior probably will not, and those that are may unlearn that habit by being

forced to forage on their own. Some rogue animals may have to be lethally or otherwise removed. By allowing the interaction to continue unabated, the cycle of young

sea lions being taught the depredation by the older, perpetuates the problem indefinitely.

We therefore request that reauthorization include a strong commitment to the

funding necessary to develop such deterrent technology. Monterey Bay is a center

of marine research and given the proximity to Sea Lion interactions would be ideal

for developing this equipment. A two sided approach, maintaining a balance in the

pinniped populations (through sterilization or other means) and harnessing the

technological advancements in society to solve these interaction problems can surely

succeed in restoring a harmonious balance between humans and pinnipeds.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Mr. Everingham.

21

STATEMENT OF ROY R. ‘‘BUCK’’ EVERINGHAM, JR.,

EVERINGHAM BROTHERS BAIT COMPANY

Mr. EVERINGHAM. I would like to thank you all for allowing me

to speak. The Everingham family and its crews has been dedicated

to serving the San Diego community since 1951. My grandfather,

Adolphus Charles Everingham, and Uncle Chuck Everingham

started working for Mac’s Bait Business in the late 1940s. Upon

my father’s—Roy R. Everingham, Senior—return from several trips

tuna fishing in 1948, he started fishing for Mac’s Bait.

My family purchased the company in 1951 and incorporated in

1963. I started working for the company in 1965 and purchased the

equipment from my father in 1994. I am a third-generation of

Everinghams to own the company.

As a commercial fisherman for 38 years, and an aerial observer

for 15 years, I have been on or over the Pacific Ocean throughout

the population increase of the sea lion. I have watched the sea lion

change from having a fear of man to totally dominating the environment we are forced to share.

As the population has grown the attribution to our holding pens,

receivers, nets, barge and boat crews have steadily increased. Eight

years ago, we started to lose a large percentage of live bait we

store.

The conditions were so bad that we lost 95 percent of our live

fish stock in 1 to 2 weeks. The sea lions would gather around one

receiver, while one would blow its air directly under the middle of

the bait receiver bottom. This simulates a depth charge going off

in the receiver, driving the fish out the cracks to the waiting sea

lions.

After many complaints and threats from my best customers, and

months of research and planning, I came up with the best and

cheapest method of diverting air from the sea lions. The cost was

$800 per receiver, and with 128 receivers, for a total cost of

$102,400.

The problem was semi-cured, but the sea lions have the ability

to learn and adapt. They learned to open the cracked lids and ram

the side of bay receivers, punching through 1-by-6, and 2-by-4, and

4-by-4 framing, to get to the bait.

The damage the sea lions caused make it necessary to haul the

receiver out of the water on to the maintenance barge at a cost of

$800 to $3,000 per receiver to repair and return to the water of 1-

to-2 receivers per month.

Due to the sea lions hanging out on top of the receivers, 1-to-3 lids are broken per week, at a cost of $80 to $400 per lid to repair.

Damage to the netting and poles for our crowders, 1 to 2 poles per

month, at a cost of $150 per pole, and repairs to the webbing of

$25 to $250, depending on the amount of damage to the webbing.

I see that as an ongoing problem that with the present laws will

only get worse. The interaction with my employees and the fishing

public is a recipe for disaster if some control is not implemented.

One of our maintenance barge crew has already been severely

mauled, laying both the upper and lower part of his hand open to

the bone from a sea lion bite, requiring 4 months of rehab.

We have contacted the controlling agency, the National Marine

Fisheries Service Enforcement, and no action has been taken. They

22

refuse to deal with the problem animal, and in fact I have talked

to them about deterrence, and they can’t even agree amongst themselves which would be legal to use.

Twice before when I have asked NMFS Enforcement for help,

they have not been responsive and have been unwilling to help. At

this time, we are dealing with an 800 pound sea lion that is pushing employees, customers, with his chest while growling and snapping to gain entry to an open receiver.

It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. We

called the National Marine Fisheries Enforcement Agency in San

Diego, and their recorder said they would be back in a week-anda-half. Since NMFS is the controlling agency, and the California

Fish and Game cannot act, and the NMFS is MIA, what can we

do?

I feel that this is unacceptable. The same large sea lion is also

boarding small boats fishing in the bay looking to steal their catch.

This is very dangerous for the vessel, and for the occupants. Small

vessels can be easily capsized by an 800 pound sea lion and the occupants could be seriously mauled.

Farmers and cattlemen are not forced to work in this type of environment. If these are the conditions that we are forced to work

under, it would only be fair to reinstate the mountain lion and the

coyote to our downtown areas so all Americans could work under

equal conditions.

Of our three vessels fishing for bait are up against difficult odds.

Trying to find schools of bait with sonars and fathometers is difficult enough without 50 to 100 sea lions following them and jumping on to every they locate.

One must set the nets quickly, leaving little time for tracking the

schools and getting their direction, making setting the net more of

a gamble. Many times we must dump half or the whole loads from

our nets because 50 to 100 sea lions per boat are in the net making

the bait quality so bad that it won’t live and they must locate and

set another school.

Not to mention that this many sea lions in the net makes it very

difficult to keep the schools in the net while pursing. There is also

continuous damage to the sack portion of the net, making it necessary to make repairs. In addition to the above, due to the increased sea lion population, there has been a large increase in the

Great White attacks along the San Diego coast.Thank you for your

time and consideration.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Everingham follows:]

Statement of Roy R. Everingham, President, Everingham Bros. Bait Co.

The Everingham family and its crews have been dedicated to serving the San

Diego community since 1951. My Grandfather (Adolphus Charles Everingham) and

Uncle (Chuck Everingham) started working for Mac’s Bait business in the late

1940’s. Upon my fathers (Roy R. Everingham Sr.) return from several trips tuna

fishing in 1948, he started fishing for Mac’s Bait. My family purchased the company

in 1951 and incorporated in 1963. I started working for the company in 1965 and

purchased the equipment from my father in 1994. I am the third generation of

Everinghams to own the company.

As a commercial fisherman for 38 years and an aerial observer for 15 years, I

have been on or over the Pacific Ocean through out the population increase of the

sea lion.

I have watched the sea lion’s change from having a fear of man to totally dominating the environment we are forced to share.

23

As the population has grown the attrition against our holding pens (receivers),

nets, barge and boat crews have steadily increased. Eight years ago we started to

loose a large percentage of live bait we store.

The conditions were so bad we lost 95% of our live fish stock in one to two weeks.

The sea lions would gather around one receiver while one would blow its air directly

under the middle of the bait receiver bottom. This simulates a depth charge going

off in the receiver, driving the fish out the cracks to the waiting sea lions.

After many complaints and threats from my best customers and months of research and planning, I came up with the best and cheapest method of diverting the

air from the sea lions. The cost was $800 per receiver with 128 receivers for a total

cost of $102,400. The problem was semi cured.

But the sea lions have the ability to learn and adapt. They learned to open the

crated lids and to ram the side of the receivers, punching through 1x6, 2x4’s and

4x4’s framing to get to the bait. The damage the sea lions cause make it necessary

to haul the receivers out of the water onto the maintenance barge at a cost of $800

to $3000 per receiver to repair and return to the water at a rate 1 to 2 receivers

per month. Due to the sea lions hanging out on the top of the receivers 1 to 3 lids

are broken per week at a cost of $80 to $400 per lid to repair. Damage to netting

and poles for our crowders 1 to 2 poles per month at a cost of $150 per pole and

repairs to webbing at $25 to $250 depending on amount of damage to the webbing.

I see this as an ongoing problem that with the present laws will only get worse.

The interaction with my employees and the fishing public is a recipe for disaster

if some control is not implemented. One of our maintenance barge crew already has

been severely mauled laying both upper and lower part of his hand open to the bone

from a sea lion bite, requiring four months of rehab.

When we have contacted the controlling agency NMFS (National Marine Fisheries

Service) enforcement, no action has been taken. They refuse to deal with the problem animal. In fact when I have talked to them about deterrents they can’t even

agree amongst themselves what should be legal to use. Twice before when I have

asked NMFS enforcement for help they have not been responsive and are unwilling

to help. At this time we are dealing with an 800-pound sea lion that is pushing employees and customers with his chest while growling and snapping to gain entry into

an open receiver. It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. We

called NMFS enforcement in San Diego; their recorder said they would be back in

a week and a half. Since NMFS is the controlling agency and California Fish and

Game cannot act and the NMFS is M.I.A. what do we do? I feel this is unacceptable.

The same large sea lion is also boarding small boats fishing in the bay looking to

steal their catch. This is very dangerous for the vessel and the occupants, small vessels can be easily capsized by an 800-pound sea lion and the occupants could be seriously mauled.

Farmers and cattlemen are not forced to work in this type of environment. If

these are the conditions we are forced to work under, it would only be fair to reinstate the mountain lion and coyote to our downtown areas so all Americans could

work under equal conditions.

Our three vessels fishing for the bait are up against difficult odds, trying to find

schools of bait with sonars and fathometers is difficult enough without 50 to 100

sea lions following them and jumping onto every school they locate. One must set

the nets quickly, leaving little time for tracking the schools and getting their direction, making setting the net more of a gamble. Many times we must dump half or

the whole load from our nets because 50 to 100 sea lions per boat are in the net,

making the bait quality so bad it won’t live and they must locate and set another

school. Not to mention that this many sea lions in the net makes it very difficult

to keep schools in the net while pursing. There is also continuous damage to the

sack portion of the net making it necessary to make repairs.

In addition to the above, due to the increase in sea lion population there has been

a large increase in great white shark attacks along San Diego coast.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Mr. Rebuck.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. REBUCK, MEMBER,

SOUTHERN SEA OTTER RECOVERY TEAM

Mr. REBUCK. Good morning, Mr. Pombo, and Congressman

Cunningham, I appreciate very much that you would come here

24

today and schedule these field hearings. It is an honor to be here.

It is my fourth time appearing on the subject of sea otters.

I wanted to correct this little sign here. It says that I am a member of the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team. I am actually a technical consultant for abalone to the team, and it is job that I have

had for about 10 years. I like it. I have been diving since 1956.

My family was in the abalone business and I was born on Santa

Catalina Island in ’51, and then we moved to Ocean Beach down

the road here, and I went to Ocean Beach Elementary School, and

I moved to Morro Bay in 1954, and I have been around the abalone

fishery my whole life, and it is really wonderful. I love diving.

I brought a photograph here today. This is what I consider to be

the human equivalent of a sea otter. It is a commercial abalone

diver, and in my search for preparation for today I came up with

a number of about 500 sea urchin and abalone divers licensed by

the State of California.

My friend, Peter Halna, who is the President of the Sea Urchin

Harvesters Association, a few moments ago informed me that I was

incorrect. The number now is around 360. So there is about 2,500

sea otters and 360 commercial divers, and I question who is really

endangered here.

Congress did a wonderful thing for us in 1986. You passed Public

Law 99-625, which created a climate where we could co-exist with

sea otters. We could have fishery zones, and sea otter zones, or

areas, where shell fish were conserved and the sea otters were protected.

The Public Law 99-625 though changed the mandate perception

that the Fish and Wildlife Service has. Their perception, and what

they have told me many times, is that their job is to recover sea

otters and not to protect fisheries.

Well, the way that I read the Public Law is that they were instructed to do both. Unfortunately for us, they have not been doing

their job. The law was passed by Congress. The Coastal Commission approved the translocation of sea otters to San Nicholas Island, because there was a containment component, meaning that

any animals that left the island or found in the management zone

would be captured and returned to the parent population.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has not done that now since 1993,

and we have continued to lose fishing grounds, and it has cost the

coastal communities millions of dollars annually in lost fisheries.

Now, I brought a few items here. This is a red abalone, and this

is about the size that commercial divers and sportsmen desire. It

is 7 inches for sportsmen and 7-3/4s for commercial divers.

This is the size that the sea otter will take down to an animal

of about 3 inches. This is just slightly smaller than 3 inches, but

you can see that we can’t really compete with this if we are obligated to take this size and otters can take any size. The abalone

will continue to exist in some cases, but they don’t get to the size

that support a fishery.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has used many excuses why they

can no longer contain the sea otters. They say, well, it was a difficult job. Well, we all knew that from the get go. When you are

out looking over hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean for

25

something that has a head this big, how do you find that in an

ocean, in the choppy seas.

You can’t, and it is very difficult, and so it was difficult, and it

was predicted from the beginning, and we knew that. But the Fish

and Wildlife Service persisted that they had the expertise, and the

training, and the knowledge, and the capability to carry out containment.

And so the project was approved, and they have been at it now

since 1987. Their next excuse was, well, there was a lack of money.

They just did not have enough money to carry out the containment

component. Well, sorry. We didn’t go for it in the first place, and

they obligated themselves to carry out.

We understand that they were taking money from the sea otter

project and putting it into the condor project. Well, they tell me

now that they have $300,000 a year in their annual budget, and

I asked them where does that money go. Does it go to research?

No. It goes to salaries.

So that’s nice. I would like to have one of those jobs, too, but

while they lose their job or if I lose my job, they seem to get promotions, and retirements, and lots of good things.

The Coastal Commission advised the Fish and Wildlife Service in

1999, and their letter is in my written comments, that the

translocation project was no longer consistent with the California

Coastal Management Plan. That means that the project is not consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

So here we have an agency that is in violation as I see it of two

Federal laws, and a significant State law, and it doesn’t seem to

matter. They just do whatever they please. Recently the State of

California and commercial fishermen that fish the Channel Islands

have agreed on reprotected areas.

That 25 percent of the Channel Islands are going to be set aside

for being reprotected areas, and to enhance things like abalone.

This won’t happen with sea otters, and so what I am asking you

today is that we somehow continue Public Law 99-65, and that

Congress require the Fish and Wildlife Service to live up to their

commitments.

They have to or otherwise we are not going to have our wonderful fisheries, our abalone, sea urchin, which is a huge export fishery; the lobster fisheries are in jeopardy, and the crab fisheries are

in jeopardy, clams. Almost 60 marina vertebrates are food items for

sea otters.

So I have no hard feelings for the sea otters, but I would really

like to find a way as Mr. Fletcher said to co-exist with these animals. I thank you again for coming.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rebuck follows:]

Statement of Steven L. Rebuck, Member, Sea Otter Technical Consultant

Group, Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team

When I last appeared before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, October 11, 2001, I attempted to demonstrate through State of

California documents how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) sea otter

program in California has failed. This failure violates a number of state and federal

laws. USFWS also violates a 1987 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between

USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Federal

Rulemaking.

26

In 1986, Congress authorized the USFWS to capture sea otters and translocate

them to San Nicolas Island, Ventura County. Public Law 99-625 allowed the

USFWS to create a separate population of sea otters, a primary objective of the

1982 Southern Sea Otter Recovery Plan. Previous to this law, the ‘‘taking’’ of sea

otters in California was illegal under provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (MMPA). USFWS plans to translocate sea otters in California began about 1979.

USFWS has repeatedly told fishermen and others their congressional mandate

was to recover the sea otter in California, not to protect fisheries. PL 99-625 clearly

amended this mandate.

A mapping study funded by USFWS and the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC)

in 1984 by James Dobbin Associates found that a translocation of sea otters to San

Nicolas Island would have the least economic impacts of sites under consideration.

However, if sea otters were not contained to San Nicolas Island, economic impacts

would be the greatest of any site under consideration.

‘‘Of all four zones, it appears that San Nicolas Island may provide the least

conflicts with shellfisheries considering simultaneous both existing commercial and sport fisheries. This assuming that the animals will disperse

throughout the Channel Islands. Should dispersal take place to other island

shelves such as the northern archipelago, (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa

Cruz, Anacapa) and Santa Barbara Island, conflicts arising from the selection of San Nicolas would be greater (in economic terms) than conflicts arising from dispersal from other zones. Dispersal outside the other zones

would also affect the magnitude of conflicts with existing commercial and

sport fisheries.’’ (EXHIBIT 1)

Dispersal and related economic impacts is what has taken place since 1987 and

especially since 1993 when the USFWS abandoned the containment component of

the translocation.

Our former Congressman, the Honorable Robert Lagomarsino, stated in a 1998

letter that:

‘‘I believe it is a contempt of Congress for U.S. Fish and Wildlife to not

carry out the law by recapture of sea otters.’’ (EXHIBIT 2)

USFWS has also demonstrated contempt for the State of California by ignoring

obligations they made to protect fisheries south of Point Conception, Santa Barbara

County.

The California Coastal Commission (CCC) advised USFWS in 1999 that the

translocation program was no longer consistent with the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) as required by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

The establishment of a ‘‘no-otter/management zone’’ was mitigation for the fisheries

and due to this mitigation, the CCC approved the translocation in 1987.

‘‘Implementation of a management zone was a critical element of CD-10-87.

In its concurrence, the Coastal Commission found that adverse commercial

fishing impacts at San Nicolas Island projected to be caused by the otter

translocation effort would be adequately mitigated by implementation of the

management zone (i.e., the ‘‘no-otter zone).’’

‘‘The Draft Biological Opinion states that the USFWS will allow the otters

in the management zone to remain to remain in place pending its decision

on the future of the translocation and containment programs. CD-10-87 is

clear that if the mitigation program (i.e., implementation of the management zone) fails, then the USFWS needs to seek further federal consistency

review. Thus, the decision by the USFWS to no longer maintain the ‘no

otter’ zone triggers the need for a new federal consistency review to determine if the project continue to be undertaken in a manner consistent with

CCMP. The USFWS should submit this matter soon in the form of either

an amendment to its existing consistency determination or a new consistency.’’ (EXHIBIT 3)

The termination of the containment component of the translocation program has

cost coastal communities, south of Pt. Conception, millions of dollars in lost fisheries. If fishery protections afforded by PL 99-625 are lost, over time, several valuable fisheries: sea urchins, crab, lobster, and set-net fisheries will be impacted.

CDFG has estimated these potential multiplied losses at: commercial fisheries,

$73,800,000; recreational fisheries, $ 150,400,000; and oil and gas $12,600,000,000.

(EXHIBIT 4).

This scenario has been opposed by the County of Santa Barbara (EXHIBIT 5), the

California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC (EXHIBIT 6) and CDFG

(EXHIBIT 7).

The USFWS established a Sea Otter Technical Consultant Group (SOTCG) to assist the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team (SSORT) in August 1993. The SOTCG

has not met since 1999. The SOTCG is made up of the environmental community,

27

oil and gas industry, recreational fishing, commercial fishing and the State of

California. A 1995 list occurs in the 2003 Final Revised Recovery Plan of the Southern Sea Otter.

On February 27, 2003 the USFWS met with fishermen in Ventura, California to

discuss the Final Revised Recovery Plan and options. Indication was given that

USFWS was conducting similar meetings with others. On June 11, 2003 sea otter

coordinator, Greg Sanders met with the Marine Interest Group (MIG) at Morro Bay,

California to discuss the status of sea otters, the translocation and the 2003 Revised

Recovery Plan. Why USFWS has not better used the SOTCG is not clear.

Concerning the status of abalone, all commercial and recreational abalone fisheries, south of San Francisco were closed in 1997. One species, white abalone,

Haliotis sorenseni, was listed as endangered May 29, 2001. This species occurs out

to two hundred feet of water; beyond the limits of compressed air diving, but not

beyond the foraging capability of sea otters.

California Cooperative Fish Investigators (CALCOF) reported on the problems associated with sea otters and white abalone in 1999:

‘‘During 1998, about 100 sea otters moved into southern California between

Point Conception and Santa Barbara. These animals are mostly males,

which range great distances. They move back into their northern territory

during mating season, but will probably return to southern California again

later. Persistent occupation and continued immigration into southern

California could have serious ramifications for the recovery of the abalone

resource and for other invertebrates as well. Several abalone species, including green, pink, and possibly white, are at such low densities that continued foraging by sea otters—in combination with the cumulative effects

of predation, environment, and anthropogenic factors—could extirpate

them.’’ (EXHIBIT 8)

Following the translocation of sea otters to San Nicolas Island, beginning 1987,

red abalone landings declined. According to CDFG published data, San Nicolas Island produced 41% of regional (Pt. Conception to Oceanside) red abalone, Haliotis

rufescens, landings in 1987, 30% in 1988, 12% in 1989 and 3% in 1990.

(EXHIBIT 9)

In 1999, the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc. and the California Abalone Association, Inc. sued the Department of the Interior (DOI) and USFWS over

the failure to contain sea otters in the no-otter/management-zone. (EXHIBIT 10).

However, fishermen were unable to sustain the lawsuit.

Another group of central California fishermen recently lost a lawsuit to preserve

their halibut and sea bass fishery due to presumed take of sea otters.

The sea otter translocation to San Nicolas Island had many problems. A number

of commitments published in the Federal Rulemaking for the project never occurred.

An 800 phone number to report otters in the no-otter/management-zone never happened. Nor did promised weekly aircraft surveys. Boats and crews were not reliable.

By comparison, CDFG did a far better job and actually captured the majority of sea

otters in the no-otter/management-zone.

Although the USFWS and CDFG had a signed MOU identifying management and

research objectives (EXHIBIT 11), USFWS has failed to operate in good faith. The

sea otter program conducted by USFWS in California can be characterized as willful

neglect.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 1981 that USFWS had not informed the State of California, nor MMC of their intentions to translocate sea otter

to San Nicolas Island. (EXHIBIT 12).

Previous translocations had problems. In 1969 and 1970, USFWS translocated 59

Amchitka, Alaska sea otters to Washington state. In 1970 to 1971 total of 93 Amchitka sea otters were translocated to Oregon. The major problem with this

translocation was that Alaskan sea otters were introduced to Southern sea otter territory. While the Washington population thrived, the Oregon population dispersed.

(EXHIBIT 13). It is quite possible Alaskan sea otters entered the California population following this translocation

CONCLUSION

The USFWS has created a climate in California where the future of shellfish and

other fisheries is uncertain. Although Congress has created legislation whereby

shellfish resource are conserved and sea otters protected, the USFWS has not cooperated with the State of California to co-manage these resources.

Without Congressional Oversight, the State of California will continue to lose valuable invertebrate resources and the human use fisheries they support.

The State of California recently established Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) on

25% of the northern Channel Islands. This is an investment in the future of fishVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:39 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88940.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
28

eries. Without controls on the sea otter, this investment will come to fruition. These

125 square miles of MPAs (no-fishing or limited fishing) occur in the no-otter/management-zone.

The State of California, commercial and recreational fishermen desire a continuation of PL 99-625 and ‘‘zonal-management’’ of sea otters. This will likely require

reconfiguration of the no-otter/management-zone. This will also require a more cooperative USFWS with a focus on problem solving and co-existence between sea otters

and fisheries.

Mr. POMBO. Well, thank you. I thank the entire panel for your

testimony, and Mr. Rebuck, one of the things that has been in the

news lately has been the—that certain populations of abalone are

endangered, and I know that off the coast just north of here they

were talking about that particular population was very endangered.

Does the increased population on the pinnipeds, and sea lion

seals, and their ability to dive and take the abalone, does that lead

to part of this?

Mr. REBUCK. Well, the pinnipeds wouldn’t take the abalone, but

the sea otters would.

Mr. POMBO. The sea otters.

Mr. REBUCK. Yes, they would, and in fact the California Cooperative Fish Investigations, which is known as CALCFI, published in

their report in 1999, and it is in my written comments, that if otters were allowed into Southern California that it could exculpate

some of these abalone populations.

There is eight abalone species common to California. These ones

are red abalone. These are kind of like fleas. They are really hard

to eradicate. The other species—white abalone, which is listed as

an endangered species—is common in this area, or formerly common.

I supported that listing, and I wrote a letter because I wanted

to see better science in looking for these populations that still may

exist, and they do exist. But there are other species. The pink abalone and green abalone, which are also potential candidates for the

list.

This is a black abalone, Haliotis cracherodii. That has been

taken by a sea otter. I can’t fish this, and this is sublegal to the

size that I would fish if I was able to.

Mr. POMBO. You can’t fish it because?

Mr. REBUCK. Well, there is a prohibition on all abalone fishing

now south of San Francisco to allow for recovery of the stocks.

These particular animals were dying of a disease referred to as

withering syndrome. It is a virus that affects these animals not due

to fishing. Their declines were not due to fishing.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Mr. REBUCK. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Mr. POMBO. Ms. Merryweather, obviously the whole case in La

Jolla has gotten attention, and one of my former colleagues, Brian

Bilbray, who came marching into my office a few weeks ago with

a stack of newspaper clips, and they are all involved the children’s

pool in La Jolla, and was quite excited about what was going on,

and what the impact had been.

And I am glad that you had the opportunity to come in and testify, and talk to us, and I am a little bit confused as to the impleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:39 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 88940.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
29

mentation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and we have testimony from different people who say that we tried to chase them

off the docks, and we chased them out of the boats, and trying to

protect our private property, and protect our boats, and protect our

public lands.

And yet in your case, it appears that they are telling you that

you can’t do that.

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. In the case in La Jolla, this is a—at one

point we had something called seal rock, and they put a sort of invisible protection around it. And they told everybody don’t go anywhere near this rock.

Well, it used to be that when the kids went out, and divers went

out, and surfers went out, they would like hurl some seaweed at

the seals, and a couple would get off and a couple would get on.

Once they put this protection around this rock, so many seals got

on the rock that a couple of them went over to the children’s pool,

and once they got over to the children’s pool, some sort of very zealous seal lovers got over there, and told anybody that if you get near

these seals I am going to have you arrested, and you will have a

fine, or you will be imprisoned.

So people were like, well, I sat on this beach my whole entire life.

What is the deal. And they are going, well, if you make that seal

raise his head, you are going to get a fine or you are going to get

arrested.

So slowly but surely due to the fact that people, and the seal people, sort of were having it out every day; and then the lifeguards

got involved, and then the lifeguards finally said that we don’t

want to deal with this.

So what they did is that they erected with the help of the city

a rope, which has no coastal permit, separating the seals from the

people. And the things that happened there—I mean, there was a

situation where a surfer who was outside lost his board, and the

only way he had to come in was at the children’s pool.

He came in and he would have drowned had he not been able

to come in there. He gets into his car, and he gets home, and a couple of days later and he has a $1,000 fine because the people who

were watching over that property over there turned these people in

continually.

To me one of the most precious things that we probably have in

California are our rights to beach access, and we are being denied

it in every possible way. And in this case, the children’s pool to me,

because it is a man-made pool, and it is a natural site, it is even

sort of more off-bounds than I think that it should be.

This is a huge piece of beach for us in La Jolla, and it is a very

special piece of beach for us, and now as I saw certain months of

the year—like right now there is no children, and there are no

seals. It smells badly. It is just a mess in every possible way.

And the other thing about the children’s pool is that it is the

origination of diving in all of Southern California. The original gogglers came out of that pool, the children’s pool. It has a lot of history, and it is just a crying shame to see what has happened to it.

Mr. POMBO. It does not—and maybe I can ask our next panel

this question, but it does not seem to be consistent enforcement to

me.

30

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. It is not at all. There is a situation where

tourists can stand on the wall and clap, and bark at the seals, and

make them go in the water and nothing happens to them.

But a diver who—we have a friend who is a diver, and who

swam with the seals for 15 years. He has two of them who are his

buddies. He gets in the water, and they jump in the water with

him, and they swim with him. He gets fined continually.

It is so difficult to understand what the rules and regulations

are. I mean, even when they said, well, maybe you shouldn’t have

fireworks this year because you are going to disturb the seals, it

is just really hard for us to figure can you be on the beach, and

you can’t be on the beach.

The seals have to die there and you can’t pick them up. They are

going to bury them there. The lifeguards themselves, most of them

that I have talked to would much rather be watching the children

than the seals, and we are about to erect something like a $2 million lifeguard tower there.

So the thing is out of hand, and it is ridiculous, and I think that

the rules just have to be eased up on, and in that situation with

the children’s pool may be changed to something else. Because as

I said, it has made it all the way to spoof t.v., and it has been in

every paper that you can imagine.

It has been all over the country. I have had people send me

things from Germany, and from France, where people are just

laughing about this, and this is just ridiculous.

Mr. POMBO. Well, over the past several years, I have had different people who have come in and complained about the enforcement, or implementation, and the way that the Act was being defined and implemented.

And I think it is a case like yours that because it affects so many

people, and it is a different group of folks that it affects, all of a

sudden people begin to really focus on what some of the shortcomings are in the implementation of the Federal law.

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. Yes, and one of the points that I would like

to make is that I feel that if I was in nature with the seal, and

I came down to the beach, and I wanted to go in the water, and

that scared the seal and made him go in the water, that is his natural behavior, and that is my natural behavior.

In this instance, when they say that I am going in the water is

affecting that seal’s natural behavior, it’s not. That is his natural

behavior. So the whole thing to me is just ridiculous.

Mr. POMBO. That is an interesting way to look at it. As I am sure

you are aware, we have been struggling with definitions and what

harassment means, and the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr.

Gilchrest, and myself, have gone round and round, and round on

this, in terms of trying to figure out what these definitions mean.

And every little change, a one word change in the Act seems to

get everybody excited, and we are trying to figure out a way to alleviate some of these problems, and it is very difficult to work our

way through this.

But, Mr. Anderson, in your particular case, you have responsibility of maintaining public facilities in Monterey.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir.

31

Mr. POMBO. When you or the folks that work with you chase sea

lions off the docks to get to the boats, are you threatened with a

harassment charge? I mean, under the Marine Mammal Protection

Act, do they come to your guys and say that if you disturb these

marine mammals we are going to fine you $1,000 for doing it? I

mean, do you have that, or—

Mr. ANDERSON. Early in our difficulties with the sea lions, we

had some of those kinds of threats. However, we were able to sit

down with representatives in our area from the National Marine

Fisheries, and work out a management program that did allow us

to chase them off the docks.

The photograph of them on our launch ramp and so on, we put

up with that for about a month because we thought that naturally

they would move on somewhere else. Well, they didn’t, and we finally made a decision that we would become aggressive in moving

them on along.

So what we did is we had our staff go down, and we power

washed the area to get rid of the mess, and within a few days they

actually moved on further into our harbor, but in an areas that is

virtually undeveloped. It is a beach area and so on.

So it is visible to the public, but they got out of this particular

area. And I will tell you that even when we had these large groups

like this, we would go in there daily and cull out the dead sea lions,

and just again from a health and safety point of view.

And when you do that, they all go into the water, and it is a

great show. They all rush down to the water, kind of in a stampede, and we would pick up the dead ones, and soon as we left,

they came back up.

But again it sounds as though there is a total inconsistency in

enforcement between Southern California and Central California.

The La Jolla situation boggles my imagination. I can’t understand

how that has happened.

Mr. POMBO. Well, it kind of boggles all of ours as well. When

Brian first brought the press clippings in to me, I couldn’t figure

out what they were thinking in terms of enforcement in that particular case, and obviously I have been to your city many times and

my kids love going down and watching the sea lions and everything

else. But it didn’t look like that the last time I was there either.

Mr. ANDERSON. It does not look like that all the time, but we

have had like I said three occasions where this has happened to us,

but right now they have moved to a totally new area. They are on

the beaches on both sides of Fisherman’s Wharf, which when they

first arrived there all the concessionaires on Fisherman’s Wharf

were elated because it was a new tourist attraction.

Well, about 72 hours later, when the stench has built up, it got

to an unbelievable position. We had a major event in Monterey this

past week with all of the automobiles and a major car show just

adjacent to this area.

I had our staff go down and pressure wash the rocks to get as

much of that fecal matter and vomit off of the rocks, and fortunately it was an off-shore breeze most of the time and so we didn’t

have the problem.

But now even some of the businesses on Fisherman’s Wharf are

extraordinarily concerned, and I suspect that you will get some letVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:39 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 88940.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
32

ters from them that we don’t have the ability to totally relocate

them out of the area.

And again I have to say that the biggest problem—and you have

heard testimony—are the ones that become very aggressive, and

these little ones, they are easy to handle. They are still very much

responsive to the measures that we take.

But the older bulls, they think they own the area, and I actually

have a videotape shot by CNN of a sea lion coming up out of the

water after one of our harbor maintenance people on the docks in

the marina. Fortunately, he was pretty quick a foot, and he got out

of the way, but he would have been attacked by the sea lion.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you. Brian also stormed in my office

and has talked about the issues, Ms. Merryweather. I am not on

this committee, and I thank the Chairman for allowing me to sit

in here.

But I think the thing that I have heard, and I came mostly to

listen today, of the different areas. I fished with Mr. Fletcher, and

I have had my bait stolen. I mean, I cast seven times and the seals,

they move around hook. They don’t get the hook. They just bite the

fish in half, and I don’t know how they do that with it moving

through the water so fast.

But the thing that I picked up today I think primarily as Mr. Anderson said is the inconsistency of enforcement, or the lack of using

the dollars for what it should be for public law, and the protection

of the public, not just from stench, but disease, and even bodily

damage from an animal.

I will do everything that I can to work with the Chairman. When

you look at the folks that are turning in people for moving the

seals, has anybody sat down with them and tried to have any kind

of dialog?

When I came back from Vietnam, I sat down with anti-war protesters, and had some kind of dialog. I don’t think I convinced them

of anything, but at least there was a dialog. And these groups that

are so adamant about their position, is there any movement for

them, and to say, hey, we want to reach a amenable agreement on

how to handle animals to protect them, and maybe even to move

them.

But has there been any dialog from any of your groups with the

folks who are opposed to what we are trying to do?

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. Yes, we have. In the beginning, there was

a quieter, gentler group of people, who informed people about the

seals. But it has become so aggressive lately that there is people

who actually have fake identifications down there and pulling out

fake badges, and telling people that they are going to have them

arrested.

There are people who are running people to their cars and taking

their license plates from them. They are taking their licenses and

then turning them in. It has become very aggressive. They yell at

people, and they have all but got into fisticuffs with people.

It is kind of over the top. And the sad thing is, and the other

thing that I would like to mention also is the shark issue in

California. Seals love to eat sharks, and they spent millions of

years tracking them and—

33

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And sharks love to eat seals.

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. Exactly, and they have spent millions of

years trying to track them and find them, and that is another issue

that we have there, and that is coming, and I just wanted to throw

that in there.

And we have talked to the city, and we have talked to everybody,

and it is just has become—one day it is that these are the rules,

and the next day it is that these are the rules.There is sort of an

ad hoc group of people who go down there and harass the people

who come to the beach, because they so much want the seals to

stay there.

And they are attacking swimmers, and attacking people who are

just wanting to sit on the beach there. I mean, there are some German tourists who just brought their blanket, and they didn’t know

about anything.

They just went and sat down on the beach, and all of a sudden

some guy is screaming in their face to get off the beach, and don’t

you know what you are doing. And they are just going like what

is all this about.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Are there specific organizations that these

folks belong to, or are they just as you say ad hoc individuals who

are concerned?

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. Well, originally there was a group that was

part of HUBBS.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Part of HUBBS?

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. Yes. They would inform people about what

is the situation with the seals, and don’t make them raise their

head, and off of that stemmed what I would consider a much more

sort of aggressive and hostile group of people, who actually harassed people.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But do they belong to a specific organization,

or just—because I would love to sit down with them and say, hey,

what we are trying to do is not harmful to the animals, but it also

allows us to co-exist, and just to see if you can actually have dialog

with groups like that, or are they so extreme that there is no movement whatsoever?

I would love to sit down with different groups and say, hey, let’s

work this thing out. Let’s protect the animals, and let’s also protect

the public, and keep us from disease and the stench, and all the

other things, too.

Ms. MERRYWEATHER. I agree. For 80 years, we have co-existed

with the seals just fine, and I can remember as a child swimming

with them when I was older, and my son swam with them. I mean,

the people come in and the people go out. The seals come in and

the seals go out. It was a nice arrangement.

But once they said that nobody could be on the beach, it just

caused this nightmare that we are faced with now.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. OK. Well, I want to thank the witnesses. To

me it has been educational. As I said, I am here to listen primarily

and see if I can work with Chairman Pombo. I want to tell you that

you don’t mess with the little guys. He is tough, and he is very

principled as far as trying to do the right thing.

34

And he is a good friend, and I think he is a good friend of both

sides of this issue if they just realized it. And I want to thank you,

Mr. Chairman, for coming to San Diego.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Before I excuse these witnesses, I wanted to ask Mr. Fletcher a question on the increased interaction that

has occurred over the years. Do you believe that that is because of

the increased population, or is it just because the population has

shifted to where your guys are?

Mr. FLETCHER. Chairman Pombo, I think it is a combination of

the increased population and the protections that have been afforded the animals from the Act. As you indicated in your opening

remarks, in some ways the MMPA is more restrictive than the Endangered Species Act, and what we have seen happen is generations of sea lions that have learned that there is no harm no foul

from interactions.

And how we have at times three generations of these animals

around the boats, and the older animals have taught the younger

off-spring, and the younger off-spring are now becoming more and

more aggressive.

And it will continue in that vain. The majority of the animals at

this point are not real problem animals. But that is going to change

as they learn from the older animals. So the years that have

passed have seen a continual increase, and the spreading out of the

kinds of interactions.

We did not have them eating all of the fish we caught, and the

bait as Congressman Cunningham indicated. Now we are seeing

more and more of that. The next step is that some private boats,

as was mentioned, in fact see animals come aboard.

I think that is going to continue, and there will be more injuries

as more and more animals learn that they have nothing to fear,

and that is why it is so important that some kind of effective, nonlethal deterrent is developed before this becomes much worse than

it already is, and it is very bad today.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Everingham, you kind of walked us through

what some of the challenges that you face in your business. And

maybe this is an unfair question, but at what point does it become

non-economic for you to continue running your business. I mean,

I realize that this is a multi-generational family business, and with

all of these costs on top of the normal costs of doing business, at

what point can you no longer continue?

Mr. EVERINGHAM. That is a hard question to answer. There is always the chance of raising the price of bait to the public, but the

sports boats are already paying I think about what they can handle. So as I stated, they adapt and learn quickly, and prior to ’72,

commercial fishermen were allowed to take the animals lethally

that were interfering with their livelihood.

This gave them a natural fear of man, which to me I feel that

the whole problem with the picture is that in the environmental

scheme that man is not included; where man is a definite and integral part of the environmental scheme, and does what man does

because that is what man is here for.

That has been taken out of the equation and that has allowed

for this imbalance to happen. I feel to me that is the number one

35

thing that has caused the imbalance in the over-population, and

the lack of fear of man.

They will learn very quickly to fear humans once lethal or painful deterrence are used. They adapt very quickly and they are very

intelligent. I have seen some of the things that they figure out on

their own. It takes them a week to days to figure out a new method

to harass after investing all the money that we invested.

But we are still able to keep up with it, and we do repair our

receivers. It is basically like painting the Golden Gate Bridge. You

start at one end, and when you get to the other, it is time to go

back and start over.

So it is a year around thing, and so everything that I stated is

added to that, and on top of that which we are already doing. So

I could not answer that totally to you. It is a hard question to answer.

Mr. POMBO. If you leave, then it affects the seals.

Mr. EVERINGHAM. Well, I guess we are at top of the iceberg, and

I have been told by Catherine that has the Association of Sports

Fishing that the sports fishing community generates about a—I

think it was about a $32 billion a year income for Southern

California, compared to suppliers, to boat repairs, to boat purchasing, tackle, and everything else that supports the industry. So,

yes, it can be quite devastating to the California economy.

Mr. POMBO. Well, thank you. I thank this entire panel for your

testimony, and it is interesting that we have similar problems and

similar complaints so to speak, or challenges, from such a diverse

group of folks. So I appreciate all of you coming in. Thank you very

much.

I am going to excuse this panel, and invite up our second panel

of witnesses. Mr. James Lecky, Mr. Robin Brown, Dr. Brent Stewart, and Dr. Doyle Hanan, if you could join us at the witness table.

If I could have you all stand and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. POMBO. Let the record show that they all answered in the

affirmative. Thank you very much for joining us today. I am going

to begin with Mr. Lecky. I told you about the way the lighting system works, and if you could try to keep your oral testimony to the

5 minutes. Your entire written testimony will be included in the

record. So, Mr. Lecky, if you are ready, you can begin.

STATEMENT OF JAMES LECKY, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROTECTED RESOURCES, SOUTHWEST

REGION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICES

Mr. LECKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and be concise

so that you have opportunities to ask questions. Mr. Chairman and

Congressman Cunningham, I want to thank you for opening the

hearing today in Southern California, and providing me an opportunity to testify before you on issues and questions that you have

raised today.

And being here to underscore the importance of developing important policies to enable NOAA Fisheries to ensure continued protection and recovery of marine mammals, while allowing the public

the continued use of marine resources and facilities.

36

The Marine Mammal Protection Act is specific in its purpose to

recover marine mammal stocks to their optimum population levels,

and in accordance with that premise, NOAA Fisheries has assigned

a higher priority to recovering declining and depleted stocks than

it has to managing the increasing populations or populations that

are already at OSP.

Now, we have used the resources and tools that were provided

to us in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA to investigate and

where possible resolve conflicts with pinniped populations. NOAA

Fisheries’ efforts to implement these measures have been hindered

though by controversy and limited effectiveness of non-injurious deterrence methods.

Given the mixed results of deterrence studies and our limited

funding, we focused most of our efforts on resolving conflicts and

situations where there are either clear conflicts between pinnipeds

and endangered salmonids, or where there are economic impacts or

safety concerns from the presence of nuisance animals.

We have conducted research in a variety of areas related to this

status of pinniped populations along the West Coast, and their role

in the ecosystem for nearly three decades now. We have monitored

trends in abundance, using aerial photographs, pup counts, and we

have investigated food habits.

In 1999, we implemented a cooperative State and Federal research and monitoring program to investigate specific interaction

problems, and experiment with deterrent devices. While some of

the pinniped populations in the Pacific have declined and are now

listed under the Endangered Species Act, the opposite is true for

most of the California populations.

The California sea lion, Pacific Harbor seals, the Northern elephant seals, which you have not heard about today, they are all increasing at somewhere around the order of 5 to 8 percent a year,

and they have been doing so since the early 1970s.

With regard to ecosystem impacts, we have been studying food

habits for California sea lions since about 1991. The study showed

that sea lions feed on a broad range of prey, but consisting mostly

of small aquatic fish and squids.

Although salmon and steelhead are represented at varying levels

in their diet, depending on geographic location and season, and as

we heard, there are some individual animals that have learned to

become adept at interacting with commercial fishing operations as

well.

Coincident with the expansion of these pinniped populations, several salmon and steelhead populations along the West Coast have

declined, and this coincidence has caused some interest to raise

concerns about resource conflicts and impacts of pinnipeds on salmon populations listed under the ESA.

Although NOAA Fisheries has concluded that seal and sea lion

predation didn’t cause a decline in salmons, it has acknowledged

that in some locations predation may actually be interfering with

an opportunity to recover those stocks.

NOAA Fisheries is funding additional feeding studies to obtain

a better picture of the total consumption of fish by pinnipeds along

the West Coast. Models of pinnipeds consumption are being developed, and tested, and new sophisticated genetic techniques are acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:39 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 88940.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
37

tually being used to refine the identification of fish, and the numbers of fish in stomach samples.

There has also been space conflict at beaches and harbors resulting from pinnipeds moving into areas used by humans, and managing these conflicts has been difficult, primarily because criteria

for deciding whether or not pinnipeds should be excluded from

beaches are not clearly established, and tools for excluding them

have proven to be labor intensive or ineffective.

To help stem the conflicts between human activities and

pinnipeds, NOAA Fisheries has worked with the States and the

fishing industry to test and evaluate the effectiveness of various

non-lethal deterrence methods.

I would refer you to my written testimony for a summary of

those devices, and a review of their effectiveness. In general, we

have not been successful in finding an effective, long term approach

to eliminating or reducing pinniped predation in most situations.

Some non-lethal deterrent methods initially look effective, but

they become ineffective over time as animals either habituate to

the stimulus, or they learn that the stimulus doesn’t really pose a

threat to their well-being.

Our interest continues to be developed to deterrent technologies

that can be applied on a broad scale with little or no adverse impact on the environment, and without serious injury to pinnipeds

or other marine mammals.

A promising line of research in this area was initiated at Moss

Landing Research Labs that investigate basic behavioral characteristics of California sea lions, and try and identify the cues that

these animals respond to in attacking those vessels, and if we can

understand and identify those cues, maybe we can figure ways to

mask them so that seals won’t approach those vessels.

In conclusion, NOAA Fisheries would like to thank you and the

subcommittee for convening this hearing today. We recognize our

success in protecting pinnipeds off Washington, Oregon, and

California poses complex challenges similar to those that resource

managers face in the terrestrial environment.

We think that given the mandates of the MMPA, and the limits

of our knowledge and capabilities that we need to proceed carefully

as we move from recovering stocks to managing stocks that are at

OSP in order to avoid unintended consequences.

As such, we look forward to working closely with the subcommittee to develop careful and creative solutions to the circumstances and problems that exist. That is my testimony, an

thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to entertain questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lecky follows:]

Statement of James Lecky, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected

Resources, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jim Lecky, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources for the Southwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on issues involving interactions between increasing marine

mammal populations and humans.

NOAA Fisheries administers the MMPA, the principal Federal legislation that

guides marine mammal conservation policy in U.S. waters, in conjunction with the

38

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The MMPA provides NOAA with conservation

and management responsibility for more than 140 stocks of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions.

The issues and questions the Subcommittee has raised for today’s hearing underscore the importance of appropriate policies that enable NOAA Fisheries to ensure

continued protection and recovery of marine mammals, while allowing the public

use of marine resources. Although we hope to learn from the experiences that terrestrial wildlife agencies have amassed while managing increasing wildlife populations, we recognize that marine mammal management poses unique challenges

that may require new approaches and technologies.

The MMPA is specific in its intent to recover marine mammal stocks to their optimum sustainable population (OSP) levels, defined by the Act as ‘‘the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species,

keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem

of which they form a constituent element.’’

In accordance with this basic premise, NOAA Fisheries has assigned highest priority to the important task of the recovery of depleted or declining marine mammal

populations, rather than to the management of populations that are increasing or

at OSP. Although the 1994 amendments to the MMPA provided tools to investigate

and resolve conflicts with expanding pinniped populations, NOAA Fisheries’ efforts

to implement these measures have been hindered by controversy and the limited effectiveness of deterrence methods. Given the mixed results of deterrence studies and

our limited funds, we have focused our deterrence efforts on situations where there

are either clear conflicts between marine mammals and endangered salmonids, or

where there are great economic impacts or safety concerns from the presence of nuisance animals.

I have structured my testimony to address the specific questions outlined by the

Subcommittee regarding the status of west coast pinniped populations, the nature

of interactions between increasing pinniped populations and humans and their effects on the surrounding environment, and the research and testing of pinniped deterrence methods.

Cooperative Monitoring and Research Program

NOAA Fisheries implemented a cooperative state/federal pinniped research and

monitoring program on the west coast in 1999 in conjunction with the Pacific States

Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This coordinated state/federal coastwide program to study and monitor the effects of expanding populations of California sea

lions and Pacific harbor seals was initiated in response to the Report to Congress:

Impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and West

Coast Ecosystems, which NOAA Fisheries submitted to Congress in February 1999.

Specific Congressional funding for this program, totaling $750,000 annually in recent years, has allowed NOAA Fisheries to conduct research and issue grants to

PSMFC and to the state resource agencies to address increasing pinniped populations and their interactions with fishery resources, salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and human activities.

Pinniped Population Monitoring Studies

NOAA Fisheries conducts surveys of pinniped abundance in California using aerial photographic methods. Initially, surveys focused on obtaining counts of the number of California sea lion pups that are born at the major U.S. rookeries. Pup counts

are used as an index of population size and have been collected every year since

1975. However, during El Nino conditions pup counts decrease greatly and are a

poor index of the entire population. To account for this, the agency began to conduct

counts of all the hauled out sea lions (pups, juveniles and adults) in southern and

central California during the pupping season, in addition to conducting pup counts.

It is expected that these counts will be more stable over time than the pup counts.

NOAA Fisheries has also collaborated with Mexican researchers to conduct surveys

of California sea lions along the west coast of Baja California and in the Gulf of

California.

The agency conducted its first California state-wide survey of Pacific harbor seals

in 2002. Previously, surveys in California were conducted by the CDFG, with federal

funding from NOAA Fisheries, or through the PSMFC. Surveys of harbor seals in

Washington and Oregon are also conducted largely by State Department of Fish and

Wildlife biologists, often in collaboration with biologists from our National Marine

Mammal Lab in Seattle.

39

Thus, the population growth and status of California sea lions and Pacific harbor

seals along the U.S. west coast has been monitored for the last three decades at

varying degrees. The cooperative research program on expanding pinniped populations has enabled the development of more broad scale and reliable monitoring efforts and better assessments of population status.

West Coast Pinniped Population Status

While some pinniped populations in the Pacific Ocean have declined and have

been listed under the ESA (e.g., Steller sea lions and Hawaiian Monk seals), the

opposite has occurred with Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions off the west

coast of Washington, Oregon and California. Populations of California sea lions and

Pacific harbor seals have increased at an annual rate of 5-8% since the early 1970s.

Elephant seals on the West Coast also have increased at about 8% per year.

More specifically, NOAA Fisheries’ stock assessments indicate the California sea

lion population exceeds 200,000 animals in U.S. waters. Population trends have

been based on pup counts, which decrease dramatically during El Nino periods

(1983-84, 1992-93, and 1998). Pup counts in the last two years (2001 and 2002, neither of which was an El Nino year) were the same or lower than in 2000, which

may be the first indicator that these populations may be finally nearing their carrying capacity. The number of total hauled-out sea lions of all age classes was also

relatively constant from 2000 to 2002. However, because pup counts vary so much

with environmental conditions and the time series for total abundance is short,

NOAA Fisheries scientists are not confident in saying that this population is near

its carrying capacity.

The Pacific harbor seal populations in Washington and Oregon exceed 42,000

seals, and the California harbor seal population exceeds 30,000 seals. Recent scientific publications by NOAA Fisheries and State scientists on current abundance

and life history parameters of harbor seals in Washington and Oregon indicate that

these populations are approaching carrying capacity and are within their OSP level.

Additional surveys are needed to confirm that the harbor seals in California are also

at OSP and approaching carrying capacity.

Ecosystem Impacts

NOAA Fisheries has been studying the food habits of California sea lions since

1981. Studies show sea lions feed on an incredibly broad range of prey, but the dominant food is small pelagic fishes and squids. In central and northern California, Oregon, and Washington, sea lion diet also includes both juvenile and adult salmonid

species (salmon and steelhead), although salmonids do not appear to be the dominant food of sea lions in any area. Fewer studies have been undertaken of Pacific

harbor seal feeding habits, but they appear to concentrate more on demersal (bottom

living) species of fish, squid and octopus.

Coincident with the expansion of these pinniped populations, salmon and

steelhead populations along the west coast have declined, raising serious concerns

about resource conflicts and impacts of pinnipeds on salmon populations listed

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As noted in the Report to Congress, although seal and sea lion predation did not cause the decline of salmonids, it may

be affecting the recovery of some already depressed populations.

The assessment of impacts on salmonids has proven to be a difficult challenge because of the uncertainty and potential bias in both the assessment of predation

rates and the size of fish stocks that are being impacted. In some areas, documented

pinniped predation levels may be high enough to affect recovery rates of some ESAlisted salmonid populations. In other areas, the studies have allowed us to exclude

predation by pinnipeds as a factor limiting recovery. Commercial and recreational

fishermen have raised concerns about the impacts of predation on fish stocks important to their fisheries (e.g., white sea bass, kelp bass, barracuda, rock fish, squid).

Quantifying the impact of pinniped predation on these fish stocks has proven to be

difficult because the available methods of sampling the diet of seals and sea lions

have biases associated with them that underestimate certain fish species and overestimate others. NOAA Fisheries is funding feeding studies to help correct those biases and to obtain a better picture of the total consumption of fish by pinnipeds

along the U.S. west coast. Models of pinniped consumption are being developed and

tested. Studies are also being funded to determine the species and numbers of individual fish consumed by using their genetic signature. Work is progressing rapidly

in this area. However, information on abundance and population dynamics of these

fish stocks is needed to assess the impact of predation.

Pinniped Conflicts with Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

The expanding populations of these two species has caused concurrent increased

reports of conflicts with fisheries. In commercial fisheries, California sea lions and

40

Pacific harbor seals have been reported removing catch and damaging gear in the

salmon troll and gillnet fisheries; nearshore gillnet fisheries; herring, squid, and

bait purse seine and round-haul fisheries; and trap and live bait fisheries. This has

resulted in economic losses in some commercial fisheries. Both California sea lions

and Pacific harbor seals are involved in interactions with recreational fisheries

coastwide, but most conflicts are attributable to California sea lions. Sea lions interact by consuming bait and chum, and removing hooked fish that are being reeled

in. Fish also may stop feeding or may be scared away by the presence of sea lions.

In addition, when sea lions are present, skippers frequently move their boats to

other, sometimes less productive, fishing areas, incurring additional fuel costs and

loss of fishing time.

Other Conflicts

There have also been space conflicts at beaches and harbors resulting from

pinnipeds moving into areas used by humans. Managing these conflicts has been

difficult because criteria for deciding whether or not pinnipeds should be excluded

from beaches are not clearly established and tools for excluding pinnipeds from

beaches and harbors are labor intensive or have proven ineffective to date.

Non-Lethal Deterrence Testing and Evaluation

To help stem conflicts that have arisen from interactions between human activities and these pinniped populations, NOAA Fisheries has worked with states to test

and evaluate the effectiveness of various non-lethal measures to deter the animals

from human activities. Much of the work took place in confined sites where resource

conflicts were occurring (e.g., the California sea lion conflicts at the Ballard Locks

and the Willamette Falls fishway) and the measures could be easily tested and evaluated on identifiable (tagged) sea lions (in contrast with open ocean water testing,

which is far more difficult). Following is a description of a variety of the methods

we have tested and an evaluation of their effectiveness.

Firecrackers—Underwater firecrackers (called ‘‘seal bombs’’) have been used

broadly to disperse pinnipeds from fishery conflicts. Underwater firecrackers have

been effective on a short term basis in many situations, but over the longer-term

with repeated use, sea lions and seals learn to ignore or avoid the noise. At the

Ballard Locks, although firecrackers were effective in reducing steelhead predation

by California sea lions in the first season of use, they became relatively ineffective

in subsequent years because the animals appeared to have learned to ignore or tolerate the noise, or evade close exposure to firecrackers by diving and surfacing in

unpredictable patterns. Similar tolerance/avoidance of firecrackers has been observed in fisheries interaction situations with harbor seals.

Cracker shells—Cracker shells are shotgun shells containing an explosive projectile designed to explode about 50 to 75 yards from the point of discharge. Although

the noise may startle pinnipeds and cause them to temporarily flee, there is usually

no physical discomfort to the animals involved since the explosion is in the air or

on the water surface. Cracker shells have been no more effective than seal bombs,

again, because the animals have habituated to them.

Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHDs)—The AHD produces a high amplitude,

pulsed but irregular ‘‘white noise’’ under water in the 12 to 17 kHz range that is

intended to cause physical discomfort and to irritate pinnipeds, thereby repelling

them from the area of the sound. AHDs have been shown to be initially effective

in some situations, but their effectiveness diminishes quickly as pinnipeds learn to

tolerate the noise.

Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs)—The ADDs are a modification of the AHDs

developed for use in deterring seals and sea lions from commercial salmonid netpen and salmonid ranch facilities. The ADDs have omni-directional and

unidirectional arrays which produce periodic sound emissions centered at 10 kHz

and at higher decibel levels than the AHDs. At the Ballard Locks, an acoustic

ensonified zone has been established under water in the area below the spillway

dam and fish ladder, and it has been effective in deterring new sea lions from the

Ballard Locks area, but has had limited effectiveness on California sea lions that

repeatedly forage at this site.

Pulsed Power—This is an electrical power (arc) discharge system that generates

both a compression wave and a noise similar to the ADD but at higher decibels.

Shock waves are different from acoustic waves because they compress aqueous medium and are able to propagate at a higher velocity for short distances. Field testing

of the pulsed power device has not occurred due to environmental concerns about

the effects on other species, and concerns for effects on sea lions. Laboratory tests

have shown mixed effectiveness of the devices on sea lions when operated at lower

levels.

41

Predator Sounds—The effectiveness of predator vocalizations to frighten sea lions

has not been consistent in tests by others. Pinnipeds sometimes have shown immediate avoidance responses to the projection of killer whale sound recordings, but

generally they have habituated quickly.

Vessel Chase—Chasing or hazing California sea lions with a vessel proved to be

ineffective at the Ballard Locks, as animals learned to avoid the vessel or swim

under it. Both commercial and sport fishermen have also used their vessels in an

attempt to chase seals and sea lions from their operation, but such efforts are usually unsuccessful.

Tactile Harassment—Tactile harassment involves shooting pinnipeds with non-lethal projectiles such as rubber bullets or blunt-tipped arrows. Tactile harassment

has been used successfully by instilling an avoidance reaction in other wildlife species (e.g., grizzly bears and polar bears) in some situations. Blunt-tipped arrows

were tested by WDFW on California sea lions at the Ballard Locks with no significant change in predation rates. Rubber projectiles discharged from a shotgun were

tested by ODFW on California sea lions at Willamette Falls with limited success.

Taste Aversion—Taste aversion is a form of aversive conditioning that involves

putting an emetic agent (e.g., lithium chloride) into a prey species to induce vomiting when the prey is consumed. This technique has been used on coyotes and was

successfully tested on a prey specific basis with captive California sea lions. Using

lithium chloride treated fish, captive sea lions were conditioned to avoid one of three

prey species without affecting the sea lions’ desire to eat the other two species.

Taste aversion using lithium chloride was attempted on California sea lions at the

Ballard Locks, but the effort was not successful.

Physical Barriers—Physical barriers have been used to prevent sea lion access to

a prime forage area in front of the entrance of the fish ladder at the Ballard Locks,

prevent sea lion access to net pens (predator nets), prevent sea lion access to docks

(low rails on docks or fencing), and prevent harbor seals from entering a channel

in the Dosewallips River where harbor seal presence was causing high coliform

counts in shellfish beds. The barrier at the Ballard Locks (a large-mesh net strung

underwater) was ineffective because fish passage may have been hampered by the

barrier and sea lions were observed foraging on steelhead at the face of the barrier.

Predator Models—Although media reports on the use of a killer whale model indicated that it was effective in repelling seals from net-pens in Scotland, use of the

same predator model at net-pens in Maine had no effect in repelling harbor or gray

seals. Observations on pinniped behavior in the presence of predators and during

field testing has shown that these methods are very short term or ineffective.

Capture and Relocation—Capture and relocation efforts with California sea lions

at the Ballard Locks indicate that transporting captured sea lions relatively short

distances (from Ballard to the outer Washington coast) are not effective, as the sea

lions quickly return. Longer distance relocation from Ballard to the southern

California breeding area was a possible, albeit costly, means of delaying sea lion return to Puget Sound for at least 30 days, thereby providing a window of safe passage for migrating salmonids that season. Unfortunately, not all predatory animals

can be easily captured, especially those of greatest concern that had been captured/

removed previously and have returned to forage at the Ballard Locks.

Capture and Placement in Captivity—California sea lions have been captured at

the Ballard Locks, placed in temporary captivity, and released after the steelhead

run. Temporary holding was found to be ineffective in the long-term because the sea

lion returned the following season and could not be recaptured before it had preyed

on salmonids. Sea lions from the Ballard Locks also have been captured and placed

in captivity permanently. Although permanent captivity does eliminate the ‘‘problem’’ sea lions without having to kill them, the method is limited by costs and the

availability of facilities that can hold sea lions permanently.

Effectiveness of Non-Lethal Measures

Efforts by NOAA Fisheries and the States as described above have been unsuccessful in finding an effective, long-term approach to eliminating or reducing

pinniped predation in most situations. Some non-lethal deterrence measures appear

to be initially effective or effective on ‘‘new’’ animals, but become ineffective over

time or when used on ‘‘new’’ animals in the presence of ‘‘repeat’’ animals that do

not react to deterrence.

High powered acoustic devices, such as the pulsed power device, may be effective

non-lethal deterrents, but they also may affect other species. The agency was aware

of these concerns in the development of the pulsed power device. The California

Coastal Commission (CCC) rejected the agency’s coastal zone consistency determination for ocean testing of the pulsed power device because they viewed it as inconsistent with protective criteria that are used for other sources of sound such as maVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:39 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88940.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
42

rine geophysical exploration, as well as due to concerns about its impacts on other

marine species. NOAA Fisheries postponed the field testing of the pulsed power device to address CCC concerns, and required captive studies to determine what power

levels would deter sea lions without causing injury or deafness to the animals.

Our interest was and is for development of deterrence technologies that can be

applied on a broad basis (e.g., multiple fishing boats) with little or no adverse impacts on the environment, and without serious injury to the sea lions or other marine mammals—these criteria will apply to any future permits for testing deterrence

devices. We need to seek new technologies and methods, beyond acoustic deterrence,

to address human interactions with increasing pinniped populations. Perhaps the

most promising line of research is a set of studies being conducted by Moss Landing

Marine Laboratory to investigate basic behavioral characteristics of sea lions to determine what ‘‘cues’’ they use to find hooked fish. These studies would describe the

‘‘cues’’ involved in interactions with fishing operations and ways to possibly ‘‘mask’’

or eliminate those cues to avoid interactions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, NOAA Fisheries would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding

this hearing today. While the increase of some marine mammal populations in the

United States demonstrates that NOAA Fisheries has achieved the recovery and

conservation goals of the MMPA, we also recognize that these ‘‘successes’’ pose complex challenges similar to those that resource management agencies have faced in

the terrestrial realm. We must proceed carefully as we move from recovering stocks

to managing stocks that are at OSP, given the mandates of the MMPA and the limits of our scientific knowledge and capabilities. As such, we would like to work closely with the Subcommittee to develop careful, creative solutions in the limited circumstances where problem interactions exist.

That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to address any questions the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Brown.

AUDIENCE: What about the sea lions—

Mr. POMBO. I would just remind the folks in the audience that

this is an official hearing, and we have to ask you not to respond

to anything that is said. It is extremely important that we maintain decorum of the hearing.

Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF ROBIN F. BROWN, MARINE MAMMAL

RESEARCH PROGRAM LEADER, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF

FISH AND WILDLIFE

Mr. BROWN. Good morning, Chairman Pombo. My name is Robin

Brown, and I am the leader of the Marine Mammal Research Program for the State of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and

we appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today and talk

about all of these different issues.

I would like to quickly recognize the support and assistance that

the State of Oregon has received from NOAA Fisheries from the

Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission, and we certainly thank

Congress for the research funds that have been directed to the

States by way of the commission that have allowed us to do some

of the work in this area that we have carried out over the past

many years.

As you have heard the data are unambiguous, and the pinniped

populations have increased significantly. California sea lions are

more common in Oregon than ever, and Harbor seals, specific Harbor seals have reached optimum sustainable population levels.

We have observed the same type of interactions that you have already heard a lot about, of human activities in the coastal zone,

43

and interactions with the public and private property, and with

other marine resources.

In our area as well, pinnipeds damage boats, docks, utility supplies at marinas, and people have been threatened, chased and bitten. Sea lions that come out of the water to take landed fish off

docks, and sea lions and seals take fish off hook and line from sport

and commercial fisheries.

Ports have posted warning signs and closed docks because of the

dangers posed by aggressive and persistent animals. With respect

to fishery resources, we recognize and want to make it clear that

pinnipeds and marine fishes have coexisted successfully in the marine environment for thousands of years, and we do not contend

that pinnipeds are a primary cause for the declines recently observed in many fishery resources.

However, we do have concerns about the negative effects of

pinnipeds predation and how that predation may affect the recovery of depleted stocks of endangered and threatened salmonids in

our State waters.

While a great deal of work is under way to recovery those fish

stocks, we feel that it would be a mistake not to consider the possibly negative impacts of pinniped predation on the recovery of

those fish stocks.

Our work has shown us that pinnipeds travel tens and hundreds

of miles inland from the ocean to forage on migrating salmon and

steelhead. Individual seals and sea lions have been observed at this

locations on multiple occasions within a single year, and over multiple years demonstrating a learned behavior and repeated behavior on the part of these animals.

However, we would like to point out also that we have found very

few of these animals that exhibit this behavior, and they represent

a very small portion of the total number of pinnipeds that occur in

each particular area.

In the late 1990s at the direction of Congress, we worked with

California and Washington with the Pacific States Marine Fishery

Commission, and with NOAA Fisheries to develop a set of recommendations that would provide new options under the MMPA

for dealing with the interactions of pinnipeds and salmonids.

Among other points that this report to Congress recommended

was the establishment of a new management framework that

would allow State and Federal resource agencies to more effectively

resolve some of the most significant resource interactions and conflicts.

That report to Congress was endorsed by our department, by our

Governor’s office, and by our Oregon State legislative assembly,

and we continue to urge Congress to consider and implement the

recommendations made in that report.

Currently under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, commercial

fisheries have legal authority to take thousands of pinnipeds each

year, and reasonable limits on this mortality have been set to prevent negative effects on populations.

Our department believes that under a similar system of permitted mortality that State and Federal resource management

agencies should have the ability to more effectively manage resource conflicts, including the option to remove small numbers of

44

individual pinnipeds, and putting other important and highly protected resources at risk, such as threatened and endangered

salmonids.

It has been our experience that the currently available deterrent

tools, and we have tried them all, are not highly or consistently effective. We strongly support the development of new and effective

deterrents. However, we also recognize that they may be very challenging to develop tests and use.

Pinnipeds, as you have heard, are quick to learn. They are bold,

and they are highly or can be highly elusive, and extremely determined. Based on our 25 or more years of experience, we suspect

that a deterrent that does not have the potential to cause serious

discomfort, pain, or injury to the animal is not likely to be very

successful.

Testing and applying these powerful and effective deterrent devices will probably be met with opposition from parties concerned

about inflicting pain on the pinnipeds, and about unintended negative effects on other living marine organisms and rightfully so in

the latter case in our opinion.

Even with the use of a new successful deterrent the option for

permanent removal of the most persistent animals will probably be

needed in order to ensure the continued success of any deterrent

program, and this has been shown to be the case in the situation

of California sea lions and steelhead at the Ballard Locks in the

Seattle area.

Finally, we would comment that the development of new deterrents may be expensive, and our department recognizes that this

work is important, but we would recommend that the cost not be

borne at the expense of the basic research on pinniped biology that

provides us with the essential information about population status

and resource conflict situations that we have been able to gather

over the past few years. Thanks very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

Statement of Robin F. Brown, Program Leader, Marine Mammal Research,

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Introduction

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) appreciates the opportunity

to present the following written testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans during this oversight

hearing on The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Much of the work and information described below was undertaken by ODFW in cooperation with the Northwest Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. ODFW appreciates the support and direction provided by these offices and their staff. Direction for some of the most recent work on pinniped predation on salmonids in the Pacific Northwest came directly from Congress by way of the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA (Pub. L. 103-

238).

Status of Pacific Harbor Seals and California Sea Lions in Oregon

ODFW has been monitoring the status and trends of pinniped (seal and sea lion)

populations in Oregon since the mid-1970s, shortly following implementation of the

MMPA, by way of statewide aerial photographic surveys. Both California sea lions

and Pacific harbor seals are common, widespread and very abundant animals along

the Oregon coast. Harbor seal numbers increased at an average annual rate of 5%

from the mid-1970s through the early 1990s and have been stable in abundance at

about 7,500 animals for the past 10 years. Statistical analysis of these population

trend data indicates that harbor seals in Oregon have reached an equilibrium level

within their environment and are currently within their Optimum Sustainable PopVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:39 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88940.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
45

ulation (OSP) range. A similar finding has been made for harbor seals in the State

of Washington by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife.

California sea lions do not breed in Oregon and seasonal abundance trend data

here are more difficult to obtain. However, it is believed that numbers of sea lions

occurring in Oregon coastal waters from fall through spring each year increased

from several thousand in the 1970s to roughly 10,000 in the 1990s. Seasonal abundance in the areas north of the breeding range (Oregon-Washington) varies annually, probably in response to changes in the abundance and distribution of forage

fishes. Discussions with NOAA Fisheries researchers suggest that the total

California sea lion population is well over 200,000 and may be at or near OSP levels. Clearly the populations both California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on the

U.S. West Coast are healthy and are currently at their highest recorded abundance

levels.

Pinniped Interactions with Human Activities

As in other areas, one result of growing pinniped populations has been increased

interactions with a variety of human activities, and with private and public property. ODFW has witnessed and/or received reports of significant and repeated damage caused to boats, docks, and utility supplies to marina facilities by seals or sea

lions hauling out of the water at these sites. People working in these areas have

been threatened, charged and in some cases bitten by aggressive sea lions reluctant

to leave their resting areas. Ports in Oregon have had to post warning signs and

close docks to human access due to the recurring presence of sea lions that cannot

be deterred and thus pose a danger to public safety. In several cases, more aggressive individual sea lions have learned to come out of the water and take fish from

landing areas or from around fish cleaning stations, thereby putting human safety

at risk. The application of the available deterrent methods (noise, water hose, projectiles, etc.) has proven ineffective at discouraging the pinnipeds from using these

areas. In one case, ODFW worked with the Port of Astoria to install low (20’’) railings of heavy galvanized pipe around the edges of docks to deter sea lions from

hauling out there. This effort worked briefly until sea lions found a way around the

railings (e.g. between a moored boat and the dock). Once on the dock, sea lions that

were disturbed by people simply broke through the railings to re-enter the water,

snapping the 2’’ steel pipe stanchions at the level of the dock with ease.

Interactions with Fisheries and Fish Resources

Since the mid-1980s ODFW has been examining pinniped food habits and foraging

behaviors in order to identify and describe prey consumption, and to evaluate the

relationships between pinniped diets and the status of important coastal fish resources. Concern over the possibly negative affects of pinnipeds on fish resources

has increased significantly as the numbers of pinnipeds in Oregon have grown, and

as the status and condition of certain anadromous, estuarine, and coastal marine

fish stocks have declined. Although data on estuarine fish and pinniped numbers

is generally not available for the period prior to implementation of the MMPA, it

is not unreasonable to expect that many hundreds of resident seals now occurring

year around in most coastal bays in Oregon may have a regulating effect on most

estuarine fish populations (e.g. flatfish populations).

Among many people in Oregon, as in other parts of the world, there is a long history of opinion that pinniped populations should be controlled in order to protect

and preserve fishery resources for human use. Little of this general conclusion has

been based on sound evidence that pinniped populations, in balance with healthy

prey populations, could have significant negative effects on abundant fish populations in healthy and productive habitats. ODFW is well aware that pinnipeds and

marine fishes have co-existed successfully for many thousands of years. It is unlikely and, at least in Oregon, cannot be scientifically documented that foraging by

pinnipeds is the primary cause for the declines in some of the fishery resource populations that have been observed in recent years (e.g. salmonids).

However, ODFW considers it quite possible that foraging by locally abundant

pinnipeds, as part of very healthy populations, may have negative effects on the recovery of certain depleted fish resources. This may be particularly true where fish

populations have been depressed for extended periods due to a variety of problems

such as over-fishing, water diversions, deterioration or simplification of riparian, estuarine and other important fish habitats, influences of other human activities, and

during periods of poor ocean and environmental conditions. During these times

when great efforts by many agencies, organizations, and private individuals are underway at great expense to recover and restore important fish resources (e.g. threatened and endangered salmonids), it is unreasonable and irresponsible not to consider and address the limiting effects that predation may have on prey populations.

46

In many cases, predation by pinnipeds on fish is readily observed and documented. Examples of such situations include sea lions foraging near sport or commercial fishing vessels (including removing fish from hook and line), seals feeding

on fish taken in commercial net gear, and pinnipeds feeding on fish attempting to

pass natural or man-made restrictions in fish passage in inland waters (e.g. natural

falls, dams, fishways, hatchery facilities). Research by ODFW and others has demonstrated that in most cases individual animals or relatively small numbers of

pinnipeds are often responsible for this type of foraging behavior on a repeated

basis. In many cases these animals can be easily identified by natural markings,

while in others they have been marked as part of research studies designed to document this individual behavior and to evaluate the possible impact of feeding behaviors on fishing or on fish resources.

Individual Pinniped Foraging Behaviors

ODFW has been capturing and marking California sea lions in the lower Columbia River in an effort to describe the abundance, movements and foraging behaviors

of the animals that occur in the river. In part, this work was undertaken to examine

and evaluate the possible effects of pinniped predation on the salmonid species that

spawn in the Columbia River and its tributaries. Many of these salmonid stocks

have been listed as threatened or endangered under federal and state Endangered

Species Acts. Coincidental to this work, ODFW and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Fisheries Field Unit Staff) have been recording the presence and feeding activities of these marked sea lions at Willamette Falls and at Bonneville Dam, 128

and 145 miles upriver from the ocean, respectively. It has been documented that

certain individual sea lions, on a repeated basis, make the trek to these fish passage

facilities to forage on salmonids attempting to pass the fishways and move upstream. These individual animals may visit these sites repeatedly within a single

season and repeatedly from year to year. Application of all available deterrent devices and methods, including the use of heavy rubber riot projectiles fired from a

12 gauge shotgun at point blank range, have not been the least effective at deterring the animals from these locations. Of the many thousands of California sea lions

that occur along the Oregon coast, and of the hundreds of thousands that occur in

the population overall, it appears that only a small number of individual animals

learn and repeatedly exhibit these undesirable foraging behaviors.

In another research effort ODFW examined the foraging behaviors of Pacific harbor seals on salmonids in a smaller coastal river system. The Alsea River Basin is

more typical of the small to mid-size estuaries and rivers found along the Oregon

coast. In the 30 years following implementation of the MMPA, most of these systems

have become populated with harbor seals numbering anywhere from 100 to 1,000

individual animals. Alsea Bay covers just over 2,000 acres and is occupied year

around by an average of 500 harbor seals. ODFW undertook this research effort to

evaluate the potential effect of harbor seal foraging on threatened coho salmon in

the lower 12 miles of the Alsea River. By way of marking seals and observing seal

foraging behavior ODFW documented that perhaps fewer than 10% of the total

number of seals in Alsea Bay exhibit the behavior of traveling upstream to forage

on returning adult salmonids. In one study year it was determined that a single seal

was responsible for as much as 15% of all salmon predation recorded that season.

In another study year it was estimated that the individual harbor seals that participate in salmonid foraging took between 10-50% of the estimated adult coho return

for that year. A final evaluation of the impact of harbor seal predation on the recovery of ESA listed coho in the Alsea Basin has not been made.

This ODFW research on California sea lions in the Columbia River and on harbor

seals in the coastal Alsea River system strongly supports the conclusion that individual pinnipeds often exhibit and repeat learned feeding habits, and that a relatively small proportion of the pinnipeds in any area are likely to participate in

these undesirable foraging behaviors.

Research and Monitoring

ODFW considers it essential to maintain federal and state support for the

pinniped population monitoring and examination of resource interactions as described above. Without the work conducted to date, we would not been in a position

to provide the kind of information included in this testimony. Without continued

support for this work, we will not be able to document changes in pinniped abundance, distribution, and feeding habits, or changes in levels of interactions with

human activities that might result from the use of newly applied deterrents or other

management actions.

47

1999 NMFS Report to Congress

For several years beginning in 1995, at the direction of Congress (MMPA, as

amended 1994, Pub. L. 103-238), ODFW worked with the Pacific States Marine

Fisheries Commission and with the States of California and Washington to assist

NOAA Fisheries with preparation of a set of recommendations for Congress to consider during a process of amendment and reauthorization of the MMPA. In 1999

NOAA Fisheries presented the results of that effort in the document ‘‘Report to Congress: Impacts of California sea lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and

West Coast Ecosystems’’ (Prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, February 10, 1999. 18p.). Among other points, the

Report to Congress recommended the development of a framework for federal and

state management agencies to address specific pinniped-resource interactions. This

framework stepped down through the application of any non-lethal deterrents that

might prove useful in a given situation. However, following a reasonable period, if

not successful, then lethal removal of individual problem or rogue animals would

be authorized, reported and monitored. It was and still is fully expected that this

type of action would be limited, but could resolve some of the more serious and

acute pinniped interactions where learned and repeated behaviors by individual animals could not be successfully deterred in any known non-lethal fashion. Meanwhile, as noted in the research recommendations, efforts to examine and evaluate

pinniped populations and their interactions with other important resources would

continue, along with new efforts to develop more effective non-lethal deterrent tools.

The NMFS Report to Congress and the draft framework for these management options and research directions was endorsed by the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, The Oregon State Legislature, and by the Oregon Governor’s office. Our

support of those recommendations and our urging of Congress to act on them continue to this date.

Authority for State Resource Management Agency Actions

ODFW is aware that under the MMPA and federal regulations commercial fisheries have legal authority to take thousands of pinnipeds each year during the act

of fishery harvest. Limits on safe levels of mortality have been set by sound scientific analyses of removal levels that will not result in the decline of pinniped population below their OSP levels, or prevent them from achieving OSP. As a state fish

and wildlife management agency, ODFW considers it incongruous and inappropriate, that a lawfully established and highly regulated resource management

agency has no readily available, functional option to remove even very small numbers of individual pinnipeds that are destroying other important, highly protected

and valued resources (e.g. threatened and endangered salmonids). Surely a system

similar to that which provides for mortality in fisheries, but insures against negative population effects, could be established for state and federal resource management agencies to deal with relatively small numbers of individual pinnipeds that

have learned and continue to repeat undesirable foraging behaviors. State resource

agencies throughout the country work very effectively in cooperation with various

federal agencies to deal with issues of seriously threatened or endangered species,

with many other species that are currently under federal jurisdiction, and with a

variety of resource conflict and conservation issues involving fish, wildlife and

human activities. All of this work is carefully controlled, fully monitored and generally very successful. ODFW believes that dealing with similar issues involving

healthy and abundant pinniped populations and coastal marine fish resources could

be handled in a similar fashion with positive results.

Deterrents

It has been the experience of ODFW that the array of non-lethal deterrents currently available to resolve negative pinniped-resource-human interactions (under

water acoustics, playback of predator recordings, above water noise makers, physical

barriers, projectiles, capture and translocation, etc.) are not highly or consistently

effective. ODFW supports the continued development and testing of non-lethal deterrents with the hope of finding one or more techniques that can be used to influence pinniped behavior and reduce the types of negative interactions that have been

described here. However, we provide the following four comments for your consideration. First, the experience of our research staff, having worked with pinnipeds directly in all of the situations described above and more for over 25 years, strongly

suggests that a long-term, highly effective deterrent may be extremely difficult to

develop and problematic to use. The individual pinnipeds that have learned these

undesirable foraging behaviors are driven by one of the two strongest urges in the

animal world; in this case to feed. California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals are

quick to learn, ‘‘intelligent’’, can be highly elusive, bold, and determined to the point

48

of bull-headedness. Very little that does not cause some type of pain or potential

injury to the animal is likely to be a very successful deterrent for more than a brief

period. Second, in many cases, even with the use of new successful deterrent tools,

permanent removal of the most persistent animals (lethal or otherwise) is likely to

be needed in order to insure the continued success of a deterrent program (as demonstrated by the problem of California sea lions at the Ballard Locks in Washington). Third, if the above statements are true, as experience suggests, then testing

and application of powerful and effective deterrent devices will likely be met with

strong opposition from parties concerned with inflicting pain or injury to the

pinniped, or about the possible unintended negative effects of the deterrent device

on other living organisms and important resources. Fourth, the development and

testing of new deterrents is likely to be expensive. ODFW recognizes this work is

important, but feels that the costs should not be born at the expense of the basic

pinniped biological research that is needed to provide us with the essential and prerequisite information on pinniped populations and their interaction conflicts.

Conclusions and Recommendations

ODFW considers it essential to maintain federal funding support for state participation in programs to monitor pinniped populations, food habits and foraging behaviors, and the assessment and evaluation of pinniped interactions with fish resources

and human activities. ODFW will make every effort to continue to support this work

as well.

ODFW supports the recommendations of the 1999 NMFS Report to Congress to

amend the MMPA to establish a new flexible, effective approach to managing acute

problems between small numbers of pinnipeds from healthy and abundant populations that are interacting negatively with other significant coastal fish resources,

or may be putting human activities and safety at risk. ODFW supports the establishment of the authority for state and federal management agencies to lethally remove rogue pinnipeds in serious conflict situations, under a carefully monitored

joint program on a case by case basis, as is done effectively with numerous other

species and issues.

ODFW has found that all existing non-lethal deterrents to pinnipeds involved in

undesirable behaviors are ineffective or only minimally effective for short periods.

ODFW supports the continued development, testing and application of non-lethal

deterrent devices that show promise of successfully deterring pinnipeds in an effective and consistent manner. ODFW recognizes that we must be prepared to test and

use serious tools in these cases if we expect to see the desired results. ODFW believes that in combination with effective non-lethal deterrents, state and federal

agencies need to have the authority for permanent removal of rogue animals, in

order to insure the continued success of deterrent programs dealing with conflict situations.

ODFW and the State of Oregon thank the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife & Oceans, for the opportunity to provide these comments.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Dr. Stewart.

STATEMENT OF DR. BRENT S. STEWART, SENIOR RESEARCH

BIOLOGIST, HUBBS-SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few slides and

it might be best if we dim the lights if that is possible for a few

minutes. I thank you for the opportunity and the invitation to provide some ecological demographic and biogeographic context for the

issues that have been discussed today.

And I will try and highlight a few issues that may explain or at

least provide some understanding on why, when, and where interactions between pinnipeds and humans have occurred and will

occur. And in fact in some cases where there aren’t any interactions.

I will highlight three species. California has a very diverse assemblage of marine mammals, and I will highlight them, including

pinnipeds, three species of pinnipeds that have been discussed

49

today so far; the California sea lion, Harbor seals, and Northern

elephant seals.

All are rebounding from very low levels for several decades or

more ago from either presumed extinction, or near extinction, or

very low abundance. California sea lions numbered in the few thousands in California waters. The primary breeding colonies are in

Southern California at two sites, San Miguel Island, which is in a

national park, and San Nichols Island, which is a Navy installation, missile tracking and testifying facility, and outlying landing

field.

But the numbers as you can see from the graph here, these are

births. The number of pups born each year in California have increased steadily since the 1940s and 1950s, but notice that there

are a couple of things that are highlighted. The El Nino years,

which the boxes occur round, where decreases in pups and in fact

substantial decreases, generally occur in warm water El Nino summers, and then recover during the cool water periods to various

extents following different El Ninos.

And the population is generally reflective of this. This is an indication of absolute population size, and the population likely does

not respond to El Ninos the same that the births do, but the overall

science of the population has followed a general increase in trends

during this several decade period.

Harbor seals in the upper left, and just the distribution of Harbor seal colonies along the California coast, and you can see that

they are pretty widespread in Central and Northern California,

and down to Southern California, there are a few.

They occur on the Channel Islands, and four mainland sites in

Southern California, including the site at Children’s Pool, where

numbers were very low in the 1980s in the area, a few dozen, and

it has increased then to about 150 to 180 that occur in the area

today, many of which are at Children’s Pool.

Overall the numbers in California have increased steadily. The

numbers may have stabilized in the last few years. I think we are

waiting on a new survey that has been done this summer to validate that.

And the elephant seals have also increased from presumed extinction at the turn of the century. In the late 1900s, they were

presumed extinct and recolonized the Channel Islands in the

1950s, and they have increased steadily throughout that period,

and two primary rookeries again at San Nicholas and San Miguel

Islands.

But they later colonized in the 1960s and 1970s at some mainland sites, including the beaches near San Simeon, where the colonies increased from a few births in the early 1980s to about 2,500

this past winter.

Some interactions here that have been locally resolved at least

to resolve human safety problems by local groups working with

NOAA Fisheries and private landholders to at least keep people

safe. Some of the resources, or at least that these animals use, the

marine habitats. This is a plot of California sea lion movements to

show where they forage, at least during the summer.

And these are pretty much at island banks and upwelling systems, offshore, near the colonies. These are animals that breed at

50

San Nicholas Island and moved away from there on foraging trips

during the summer breeding season.

And San Miguel Island, which is the other primary rookery, animals forage further to the north, a little bit closer to the coast, but

often during the summer further from the mainland and often don’t

interact with coastal human activities.

Harbor seals are mostly coastal, and you will find them within

a few miles of the haulouts and rookeries. Northern elephant seals

rarely are seen. They occur far out at sea for about 8 to 10 months

of the year, and often do not interact or are not seen by humans,

regardless of what they are doing at sea.

And some of the resources that have facilitated these population

increases, some of the research that has been done by us and other

groups to identify these resources, and a summary of the primary

prey for the three species, you will notice some overlap between

California sea lions and Harbor seals, and also some overlap with

their prey and those that are commonly exploited by humans.

Northern elephant seals again far exceed deep in the water column. And the principal foraging habitats, California sea lions are

neuritic and somewhat demersal, but generally coastal upland

dwelling areas when they are feeding near shore banks and islands. Harbor seals are demersal and also are near shore; and

Northern elephant seals are far away from most human activities

and presence.

These interactions that have been discussed today are certainly

intensifying as the populations have recovered and increased, but

it is a small proportion of the population generally that we see that

is interacting with human use of marine habitats.

And it is seasonally affected. There are different patterns of habitat used by all these species, and they vary by season, and time

of year, local time of year, and also autobiology, and whether they

are migrating or they are breeding. So, thank you for the time.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stewart follows:]

Statement of Brent S. Stewart, Ph.D., J.D., Senior Research Biologist,

Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Brent Stewart, a Senior Research Biologist at Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute (HSWRI). Thank you

for the invitation to testify before the Subcommittee today to provide some demographic and ecological context for the discussion on interactions between seals and

sea lions (pinnipeds) and humans or human activities along the Pacific coast of

North America. My comments below are based on 27 years of directed studies on

the population biology, foraging ecology, and key marine and terrestrial habitats of

California sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals in the eastern north

Pacific Ocean. I will briefly describe the histories and current abundances of these

populations, the marine resources that have evidently supported population growth,

and their temporal and spatial patterns of geographic and vertical dispersion.

Population history:

The historic abundances of California sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals are unknown and, indeed, unknowable. Aborigines hunted them for several thousand years and likely reduced their populations substantially in many

areas, especially at the Southern California Islands, and exterminated them at some

locations. Whatever populations existed when European explorers, whalers, sealers

and sea otter hunters arrived in California waters in the 18th and 19th Centuries

were subsequently reduced even further until commercial harvests ended when populations had either been exterminated or reduced to levels too low to economically

support further harvests.

51

California sea lions numbered only a few thousand by the mid-20th Century,

breeding at two primary colonies at San Nicolas Island (a U.S. Navy outlying landing field and missile tracking and testing facility) and at San Miguel Island (part

of the Channel Islands National Park since 1980) with limited public access. Reproduction has since increased rapidly and substantially at both colonies (with brief

interruptions during El Nino years); over 40,000 pups were born in 2000 with slightly fewer in 2003 owing to biological effects associated with the mild 2002/03 El Nino.

Harbor seals were not common in California waters in the mid-20th Century,

owing to a variety of causes including authorized bounties and indiscriminate shooting and poaching. Numbers increased steadily from the early 1970s onward through

at least the late 1990s, though abundance may have stabilized since at around

45,000 to 50,000 with around 9,000 in southern California, primarily at the southern California Channel Islands. There are three mainland colonies of harbor seals

south of Point Conception; at Carpinteria (south of Santa Barbara), at Mugu Lagoon

(Point Mugu Naval Air Station), and at La Jolla. Numbers at the latter site (aka

‘‘Children’s Pool’’) have increased steadily from fewer than a dozen in the late 1970s

to around 150-200 in 2003 with reproduction in the area occurring since the late

1980s.

Northern elephant seals were presumed extinct by the end of the 19th Century

owing to long-term subsistence harvest by aborigines, commercial harvests by

whalers and sealers in the early 1800s, and then scientific collections in the late

1800s.. A very small number did however survive in Baja California, from which the

species began recovering and expanding its range in the early 1900s. The southern

California Channel Islands were colonized in the mid-20th Century and island and

mainland sites in central California soon after. In 2003 over two thousand pups

were born on mainland beaches near San Simeon, which has developed into a substantial tourist attraction. Population growth and range expansion in the U.S. is

continuing. The two primary colonies for the species at San Nicolas and San Miguel

Islands accounted for over 20,000 births in 2003.

Seasonal geographic dispersion:

Breeding California sea lions occur in large numbers at and near colonies at the

southern California Channel Islands (principally San Nicolas and San Miguel Islands) from late May through August. Those seen near the mainland coast in southern California then may be from the colony at the Coronado Islands in northern

Baja California or perhaps colonies farther south. Non-breeding sea lions from U.S.

colonies occur farther north along the California coast throughout summer and may

remain there or move even farther north in autumn and winter. Lactating females

forage mostly away from the mainland coast throughout the year, near areas of

strong upwelling of nutrients where resident and migratory fish and squid prey concentrate and aggregate. During El Nino years, when upwelling systems decline in

strength or fail, sea lions may spend more time in habitats nearer the mainland in

search of more dispersed neritic or demersal prey. Adult and socially immature

males leave the breeding colonies in late summer and migrate north to feed, and

to haulout regularly, while molting, along the coasts of California, Oregon and

Washington and as far north as British Columbia. Large aggregations occur at several well-known mainland sites where seasonal abundance has been increasing

owing to sustained reproduction in southern California during the past several decades and evidently good survival of juveniles and adults in most years. Most

California sea lions occur in nearshore habitats when north of Point Conception, but

generally farther offshore in Southern California, though small numbers of sea lions

clearly inhabit near-shore waters from San Diego to Santa Barbara in most seasons.

Harbor seals generally remain near island and mainland haulout sites yearround, though they may travel up to 20-50 miles away to forage for several days

or weeks at some seasons. Numbers of seals ashore vary seasonally as seals spend

more time hauled out during the winter/early spring breeding season and in late

spring and summer when molting and less time hauled out when more actively foraging from late summer through winter. Foraging harbor seals are also attracted

to various coastal areas where prey aggregate or become temporarily concentrated,

like at the mouths of streams and rivers.

Northern elephant seals rarely occur near the mainland or island coasts except

when quickly departing at the end of the breeding season, arriving to molt, departing after molting, or arriving to breed. Elephant seals otherwise spend most of the

year (8 to 10 months) several hundred miles or more from the mainland coast while

feeding.

52

Diet:

The diet of California sea lions varies seasonally and has been dynamic over the

past several decades. Near San Nicolas Island, four or five species of fish and

cephalopods generally dominate the diet during any year. In the 1980s the principal

prey were northern anchovy, Pacific hake, jack mackerel, several species of rockfish,

market squid, and Pacific mackerel. In the 1990s the principal prey were Pacific

hake, two-spotted octopus, chilipepper rockfish, market squid and jack mackerel.

Near the southern California Channel Islands, harbor seals primarily eat rosy

rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, spotted cusk-eel, plainfin midshipman, market squid

and red octopus. Near La Jolla, their diet is dominated by jack mackerel, Pacific

sanddab, Pacific hake, and rosy rockfish.

Northern elephant seals prey mostly on deepwater, bioluminescent squid and, to

a lesser extent, fish

Vertical Foraging habitats:

When in the Southern California Bight, California sea lions forage mostly at

depths of 150 to 300 feet, primarily in offshore areas where upwelling of nutrients

supports productive local resident and migratory fish and squid communities,

though they may also forage occasionally on demersal prey in nearshore kelpbeds.

Migrating sea lions, especially subadult and adult males, may forage closer to the

mainland coast, often taking advantage of opportunities associated with recreational

and commercial fishing operations that may provide easy meals with less foraging

effort.

In southern California waters, harbor seals generally forage in demersal, nearshore habitats at depths of less than 300 feet.

Northern elephant seals principally forage in the water column at depths of 750

to 2,500 feet.

Conclusion:

The southern California Channel Islands and Southern California Bight support

the most concentrated taxonomic diversity of seals of sea lions (pinnipeds) in the

world. The populations of California sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant

seals numbered between a few hundred to a few thousand in the early to mid 20th

Century owing to long term subsistence hunting by aborigines and commercial harvests and indiscriminate killing in the early 1900s. Since the blanket prohibition on

killing them in 1972, with the promulgation of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection

Act, ranges and populations have increased steadily to current levels that are several of orders of magnitude greater. Scientific research during the period of population growth has identified the marine and terrestrial habitats and prey that have

been key in facilitating the increases. Several of those habitats are also used to various extent by humans for recreational or commercial purposes and some of fishes

and cephalopods are exploited in common by pinnipeds and humans. These overlaps

generally occur with small proportions of the pinniped populations in particular

areas and seasons. The interactions between pinnipeds and humans have nonetheless been intensifying owing to the large absolute increases in populations and the

periodic changes in distributions and foraging behaviors of pinnipeds during El Nino

years when substantial declines in local abundance and distribution of normal prey

occur. The most frequent interactions and conflicts are with California sea lions and

harbor seals whose use of coastal habitats overlap most often with human activities.

In contrast, interactions with humans and northern elephant seals are rare, owing

to elephant seals’ pelagic and deepwater foraging habitats and their brief seasonal

presence at offshore islands. Exceptions are at recently colonized mainland beaches

in central California, where human safety is the key issue. Though there are some

indications that numbers of harbor seals may have stabilized recently, there are no

indications that growth rates of populations of California sea lions or elephant seals

may soon decline naturally.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Dr. Hanan.

STATEMENT OF DR. DOYLE A. HANAN, PRESIDENT,

HANAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Dr. HANAN. Good morning, Chairman Pombo, thank you very

much for this opportunity to speak to this subcommittee, and I

want to thank Congressman Cunningham for this opportunity. I

appreciate it.

53

Recently I was asked to put together some information regarding

the cost of the sea lion population, and what does it cost in an

abundant sea lion population to the West Coast, and this preliminary report was funded by the Fisherman’s Lines of Monterey and

the Sports Fish Association of California, and I would like to thank

them for their help.

My credentials are that I received my Ph.D. at UCLA in studying

the population dynamics of Harbor seals. I served with the

California Department of Fish and Game for 27 years during which

time I supervised and was the lead biologist in their marine mammal program for about 15 years.

I currently serve on three advisory committees or bodies, one is

the Pacific Scientific Review Group, to advise the National Marine

Fisheries Service on marine mammals in the Pacific. I also serve

on the Take Reduction Team for the Pacific Cetaceans, and I am

also on the advisory panel for the highly migratory Species for the

Fishery Management Council.

Part of the significant points in this preliminary report since the

1997 report to Congress, which was written regarding impacts of

sea lions and Harbor seals, on salmonids on the West Coast Ecosystem, this is a preliminary report. Our final report will be finished up by the end of this year.

Since that report to Congress was written, research has focused

on population estimates, and the biology of the pinnipeds, food consumption, and interactions. By interactions we mean either taking

bate, taking fish, or reducing the ability to take fish by fishermen.

The California sea lion population is robust and expanding at 6

to 8 percent annually, and I think that this is an indication of the

health of the environment, and the health of the forage fish that

they feed upon.

Some estimates put the sea lion population at over 300,000 at

this time. If we estimate that a sea lion might eat 8 to 10 percent

of its body weight per day, that is about 20 pounds of fish per day,

which would indicate that sea lions could eat 3,000 tons of fish a

day, which will be as much as a million tons of fish per year, far

in excess of any of our fisheries.

What are the effects on the recreational fishery. With over

700,000 angler days per year on as many as 400 commercial passenger fishing vessels, we estimate that in the last 4 years there

have been anywhere from 12 to 40 percent interaction rates with

each of those fishing days.

And what we mean by that is that either a depredation, actually

taking a fish, or a sea lion approaching the boat, which causes or

they said which cuts off the bait. In other words, the fish leave,

and so there is nothing to fish.

When that happens, the boat usually picks up and moves to another area. What is the cost of moving to another area? We estimate 290 days are lost per year in the party boat or CPFB fishery.

Fish lost. There are about 3 million fish landed per year in the

recreational fishery, in CPFB fishery, and about 65,000 fish are

lost per year, and at 50 cents a fish, we could say there was about

$45,000 of lost fish.

Bait losses. We estimated bait losses at $55,000 per year. Gear

loss. When a fisherman loses his gear to when a fish is taken off

54

his line, and the gear can be anywhere from $2 to $9. We estimate

that gear loss would be $380,000 per year. An average total loss of about $2-1/2 million per year in the recreational fishery. In the salmon troll fishery, which is a fishery

where lures are trolled through the water, we estimate $470,000

lost in fish per year, at $20 per fish. And this can actually end the

season. It can make it so that the salmon troll fishermen can’t even

fish at the end of the year.

In the live bait fishery, which you heard about with the last panel, this is about a $30 million industry in California. I have

guesstimated losses due to the loss of bait that is in the banks from

sea lions breaking in and from sea lions destroying the bait around

$2-1/2 million per year.

Also, I have—you heard from Mr. Everingham about the receivers, and I have some more testimony that I would like to give to

you from a bait receiver operator in Redondo who reports similar

problems.

So what are the issues? We have a growing, robust sea lion population. Culling is not the answer. People are not interested in culling and it is not a way to look at solving the problem, but at what

cost?

We need to look for reasonable solutions, and I would recommend

that you look to the 1997 report to Congress, and the recommendations that were included in that report. I would ask that you implement those recommendations, which include site specific management.

But don’t make it a media event, nor a delaying process. I would

ask that you ask for development of safe effective deterrents, and

I would ask that you reinstate the ability of commercial fishermen

to protect their gear and catch with certain rules and regulations.

Continue the research. I would ask that you establish a fund to

develop a deterrent program within the National Marine Fishery

Service. These types of programs are very effective. For instance,

with the tuna and porpoise issues, and the development of the Medina Panel, and the backdown techniques. With the SRG process

and the take reduction teams, and the reduction in marine mammal take in the drift gill net fishery was about 80 percent. And a

final thing, I would say that if we cannot develop effective deterrence, we need to reimburse the fishermen, the fishing population,

the businesses, for the loss due to sea lions. thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hanan follows:]

Statement of Doyle A. Hanan, Ph.D., President,

Hanan & Associates, Inc.

California sea lions interact with almost all commercial and recreational fisheries

along the west coast of America. As the sea lion population continues growing, so

do fishery interactions and the costs associated with these interactions. In this report, we present three case studies (recreational fisheries, commercial salmon and

live bait receivers) to exemplify the economic impact of sea lions in California. This

report presents our preliminary results using readily available fisheries data and

published and unpublished sources to provide value estimates associated with sea

lion interactions and depredation.

California sea lion interactions with fisheries in California have been documented

since implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 (Miller et al.,

1982, DeMaster et al., 1983, Hanan et al., 1989, Beeson and Hanan 1996, Fluharty

and Hanan 1997, NMFS 1997). When these studies were initiated in the late 1970’s

approximately 80,000 sea lions inhabited the U.S. West Coast. More recently, in the

55

National Marine Fisheries Service mandated Stock Assessment Reports (SAR)

Carretta et al. (2002) presented an estimate of over 200,000 sea lions, growing at

a rate of over 6% annually (Figure 1). A revision of the SAR is expected by the end

of 2003 incorporating new biological life history information that will change the

population estimate to well over 300,000 sea lions. Aside from the actual population

estimate, with the population growing so dramatically, it is likely that sea lion

interactions will also increase proportionally. Therefore, in terms of resource management, it is important to obtain as much information on pinniped interactions as

possible and to place a dollar value on these interactions to help understand and

put the issues into perspective.

To estimate costs associated with sea lion interactions, data are available from a

variety of sources. Depredation rates (the number of fish depredated relative to the

total angler landings) have been estimated (Miller et al., 1983 a, b; Hanan et al.,

1986; Beeson and Hanan 1996; Hanan and Fluharty 1997) and were documented

by area in a report mandated by Congress (NMFS 1997) to document the effects of

sea lions and harbor seals on west-coast salmon and the greater ecosystem. Additional data are available since that report to Congress (MRFSS 1999) as well as,

research funded by Congress, NMFS, and administered by the Pacific States Marine

Fisheries Commission under the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (Appendix

A). The ultimate goal of our project is to use these data in combination with information obtained from the literature on pinniped population assessments, food habit

studies, and fishery statistics to estimate fish consumption and other costs associated with pinniped interactions. Results from our project will provide valuable insight into the current effects sea lions are having on west coast fisheries, facilities,

and quality of life.

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared using funds kindly made available by the Fishermen’s

Alliance of California and the Sportfish Association of California; we specifically

thank Mr. Frank Emerson and Mr. Robert Fletcher for their help in securing these

funds.

The PacFIN (http://wwwpsmfc.org/recfin) and RecFIN (http://www.psmfc.org/

pacfin/data) data bases (maintained by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission) integrate state and federally funded sampling programs for marine fisheries.

The ultimate goal is providing databases where information can be accessed by fisheries managers and interested parties. PacFIN and various California Department

of Fish and Game (CDFG) reports provide information on number of vessels in a

56

particular fishery, landings, species, and value. Data for marine recreational fisheries have been collected since 1979 by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics

Survey (MFRSS) funded jointly by the NMFS and the state fisheries agencies. Surveys include intercept (creel) and phone surveys, and onboard observer data collection. Since 1999, interview forms include supplemental information describing

pinniped interactions with CPFV (Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessels which

sport anglers pay to ride and fish). In California MRFSS samplers rode CPFV’s to

interview the anglers and obtain information on location of harvest, as well as, detailed pinniped interaction data. The interviewer observed angler interaction with

pinnipeds and recorded lost bait, sportfish, gear, and time resulting from pinniped

interactions. These data will provide insight into the actual behavior of depredation

by sea lions as well as providing the basis for establishing values for the loss associated with each interaction.

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES

In California, approximately 700,000 anglers fish annually and spend hundreds

of millions of dollars for this privilege (Golden 1992, Thompson and Crooke 1991).

They fish year round from piers, jetties, beaches, shores, private boats and CPFV

(also known as party boats). In this study, we focus on private boats, charter boats

and CPFV. Anglers fish for a variety of species from party boats carrying as many

as 50 anglers per vessel. California sea lion interactions have become an integral

part of this fishing experience. These interactions range from the mere presence of

a sea lion scaring the fish and keeping them from biting, to removing caught fish

and bait from lines, to damaging gear, and causing the boat to take the time to

move to another location. These interactions were documented recently by MRFSS

pinniped add-on study for the years 1999 through 2002. These can be used to determine the extent of the interactions when compared with the results from Miller et

al. (1982), Beeson and Hanan (1996) and Hanan and Fluharty (1997). An additional,

more detailed data set collected by trained observers onboard CPFV can also be

used for comparison to the RecFIN interview and CPFV logbook data (collected by

the California Department of Fish and Game). The tables below represent our preliminary results. Table 1 summarizes estimates derived from number of interactions

and the rate interactions to estimate annual rates from 1999 to 2002.

Interactions

Table 2 shows the overall rates of interactions by year from the RecFIN interview

data. Interactions include approaching close to the vessel (scares fish away), depredation, damaging gear and moving the vessel away from the sea lion(s). The 1999

onboard angler survey had an interaction rate of 40% and included sea lion presence

as a basis of interactions.

Fish Lost

Table 3 shows the estimate of fish lost to sea lions by year with an estimate of

fish value based on interviews after anglers returned to the dock. Miller et al. (1982)

and Beeson and Hanan (1996) provided costs estimates based on the value of the

species lost due to predation (ranging from $0.5 to $0.7 per fish.). As a preliminary

estimate, we used the lower value of $0.5 per fish for comparison. The depredation

rate was between 2% and 3% percent for 1999-2002. The 1999 onboard angler data

set had a 3% loss of fish based on at-sea observations.

57

Bait Lost

Bait is taken by sea lions directly off the line or from the water when chum is

thrown to attract game fish. The sample size for this data item was very small. The

onboard angler survey did not record these data. The value of bait was determined

by dividing an estimated 100 fish per 10 pound scoop by its average cost of $30 per

scoop.

Gear Lost

Fishing gear losses for the approximately 700,000 angler days consist mainly of

lures and other items attached to the fishing line. The minimum estimate provided

to the interviewers for lost gear lost to sea lions was $1 and the maximum was $9

with a mean value of $2. The onboard angler survey was provided data for gear loss

in the range of $1 to $170 dollars with a mean of $9.

Time Lost

The time lost as a result of a pinniped interaction is one of the most interesting

behaviors documented in the data sets. There is a difference in the estimates of lost

time between the interview data where anglers are asked after the fishing trip to

provide an estimate of the time lost moving and avoiding sea lions and the onboard

observation data where actual start and end of fishing time is recorded. The time

lost recorded in 1999 was about three times higher than angler estimates after a

fishing trip, which leads us to believe that the anglers certainly are not exaggerating losses or pinniped interactions. Estimating the value of lost time can be

attributed to a number of tangible items such as fuel and personnel but the simplest

way to estimate value is to use average cost of chartering a CPFV per day ($2000).

The amount of time lost is recorded in minutes but when compared to the entire

set of fishing trips, the numbers are quite large and can be described in total days.

The minimum time lost per interaction was recorded to be one minute with a maximum of 45 minutes in the interview data with a mean of eight minutes. For the

onboard angler survey, the minimum time loss was one minute and the maximum

was 500 minutes. That is an entire work day avoiding sea lions and eight hours is

a very long time when it’s your recreational time. If each vessel shared the cost of

losing time, they would all be losing around $6,000 a year in time spent moving or

avoiding sea lions. Further analysis should reveal whether some of the high values

58

of lost time correspond to higher interaction rates for lost fish, lost gear, or lost bait.

A multiplier was developed comparing the onboard data with the interview data

from 1999.

Total Value of Pinniped Recreational Fisheries Interactions

The total economic loss to the recreational fisheries from pinniped interactions is

estimated in Table 7. The mean total value ranges from $600,000 to over $5,000,000

annually. If these losses are divided between individual vessels in the CPFV fleet,

each vessel would incur losses in the range of $2,000 to $16,000 annually to sea lion

interactions.

RecFIN data provide insight into behavior of sea lion interactions. It is often

thought that interview data might be skewed towards exaggeration of the impacts,

but the onboard observer data seems to dispute that concept because estimates of

fish, time, and gear lost are all higher in the onboard observer data. One reason

may be that many of the questions for the onshore interview surveys are left blank,

while the onboard observers collect the data as it is occurring. The amount of data

available using RecFIN is extremely small compared with the total effort of the recreational fishing fleet but it is a start. It would be valuable to incorporate the CPFV

data into the analyses as was done in the previous studies (Miller et al., 1992,

Beeson and Hanan 1996, Hanan and Fluharty 1997) especially because the CPFV

logbooks include a field for recording ‘‘fish lost to seals/sea lions’’ starting in 1994.

COMMERCIAL SALMON

In salmon troll fisheries, the fishing vessel trolls lures attached to a weighted line

through the water. Once a salmon is hooked it is brought aboard the boat. Sea lions

react to hooked fish by either removing the fish from the hook or damaging the fish.

This can have a significant impact on the fishermen considering the average price

for each fish is about $20, in addition to the cost of lost or damaged gear. The numbers of depredated salmon have increased as the sea lion population increased

(Hanan and Fluharty 1997). In 1980, an estimated 12,459 legal sized salmon worth

$274,000 were lost, while in 1995, an estimated $86,700 salmon worth $1,734,000

were lost to sea lions. Table 8 lists associated value estimates for the depredated

fish portion of the catch for the years 1980 through 2002. Miller et al. (1982) estimated the depredation rate to be in the range of 2% in 1980. Beeson and Hanan

(1996) found the rate had increased to 12% likely as a result of the increase in the

sea lion population itself. The data presented in Table 8 are taken from PacFIN

landings and value reports and serve to illustrate the point that there is a cost associated with sea lion depredation on commercially caught salmon. Analyses of commercial salmon troll fishery data are in progress and should be available by the end

of the 2003 (Palmer et al. in prep, CDFG).

59

Weise and Harvey (2001) studied interaction rates between sea lions and salmon

troll fisheries in Monterey Bay and also found depredations rates to be in the range

of 12%. They found definite pulses of interactions corresponding to the migration of

sea lions to and from the breeding islands. In 1995, the CDFG Ocean Salmon

Project which estimates annual landings and fishing effort in California’s commercial salmon troll fishery added sea lion interaction information to their database.

Hanan and Fluharty (1997) utilized those data to estimate sea lion depredation

rates and obtained similar results. Our data show an average loss over this 24 year

period of approximately $450,000 annually. The costs associated with a 2% or 12%

rate of salmon depredation clearly points to a conflict between sea lions and fisheries and are further complicated by the conflicts between two protected resources

(marine mammal and salmon).

LIVE BAIT RECEIVERS

Reports of sea lions interacting with commercial live bait receivers have increased

dramatically over the past few years. Previously, as in the case studies described

above, sea lion interaction studies have been focused on sport and commercial fisheries. Bait receivers are floating pens or containers where small schooling salt-water

fish and squid are kept alive for sale as sportfishing bait. The receivers are anchored or secured to shore in bays and harbors where the live bait are sold to anglers on private boats, CPFV, or charter ‘‘six pack’’ boats. Sea lions haul-out on the

floating structures and interact by preying on the bait, breaking into the receivers,

and damaging the structures.

Hanan (2002) provides baseline information on the types of containers used to

hold the bait and discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses of each design.

In that study, numerous sea lion behaviors were documented in relation to bait receivers and associated costs. Sea lions climb onto (haul out), swim near, break into

the receivers, or (if the receiver lid is open) jump from the harbor water over the

walkway into them. They chew through the netting on some receivers and ram the

walls to create holes allowing the bait to escape through openings or the sea lions

to get into the receivers. They also blow bubbles (air blasts) up through the receivers when swimming underneath. This disrupts bait schooling behavior and swim

patterns causing the fish to collide and be injured, thus increasing bait mortality—

ultimately to be eaten by sea lions and birds.

Hanan (2002) summed individual operator estimates of total annual losses and

additional operational costs in California to estimate the total losses associated with

sea lion interactions on live bait receivers. Loss estimates include damage and repairs to receivers, increased construction costs and maintenance, value or volume

of bait killed or consumed, and cost of replacing bait destroyed by sea lions during

the six month peak period of sea lion interactions. He noted that as much as 30-

100% of the bait in a receiver can be lost each night. Live bait is currently valued

from $20 to $40 per scoop (each scoop contains approximately 10 pounds or around

60

100 fish) and each receiver holds varying amounts of bait fish depending on size and

location.

The retail value of bait in this industry is estimated to be about $30 million dollars (5000 tons x 200 scoops/ton x $30/scoop). Table 9 breaks down losses to sea

lions by region for a total bait loss of about $2.3 million, which represents approximately 8% of the retail value. If as expected, these financial losses continue to increase as the sea lion population increases, developing methods for identifying repeat offenders and reducing interaction will be crucial for the survival of this business. The safety of receiver operators who come in contact with these sea lions must

also be considered.

As Hanan (2002) noted, the financial losses imposed on live bait receiver operators can be staggering but he also found that certain structures could stand up to

the trials of sea lions better than others. Changes to structural designs are a start

towards mitigation, but there is very little an operator can do when a large sea lion

decides to jump in the bait well. Operators need sea lion deterrents and options for

the protection of their product, facilities, and for personal safety.

CONCLUSIONS

What are the costs of maintaining a healthy, abundant and expanding California

sea lion population? In this presentation, we identified and explored some economic

impacts of pinniped as a measure of degree. For years, resource managers have focused primarily on the protection and success of marine mammal populations to increase in numbers with attention to reducing interactions and reducing marine

mammal incidental mortalities. Now that the California sea lion population has

grown is still growing beyond any level recorded or expected, this protected species

might be categorized as overabundant therefore confounding its management

(Yodzis, 2001) under the MMPA. The estimated value of catch and gear damaged

by pinnipeds in California fisheries exceeded $450,000 in the early 1980’s (DeMaster

et al. 1982). But now our preliminary estimates using data from recreational fisheries and commercial salmon may be in excess of $5 million dollars annually. Factoring in the live bait receiver industry pushes the economic losses over $7 million

dollars annually.

In addition to the financial burden of sea lion interactions on the fishing industry,

there may be an impact on certain fish stocks. Hooked fish lost to sea lions are

losses to the fish population and these losses need to be taken into consideration

when determining allotments or quotas. As certain fish species decline, sea lion consumption would become a larger portion of the extant population and are likely a

problem in fish stock recovery.

As has been stated in many reports regarding fishery-pinniped interaction issues

that we are still data poor, but these data give us a qualitative look at pinniped

interactions. Appendix A lists some of the federally funded research projects initiated since 1998. The results from these projects should provide a better picture of

the level of interactions occurring along the West Coast, but attention to development of non-lethal deterrents for pinnipeds has been inadequate. We agree with the

Marine Mammal Commission’s recommendation that a workshop of fishery specialists, marine mammal behaviorists, trainers, and other appropriate experts be convened to recommend a program of specific studies aimed at identifying safe and effective deterrence measures.

We further recommend that Congress fund and NMFS establish a non-lethal deterrent development program.

61

In terms of recommendations, general culling is not a reasonable solution

(DeMaster and Sisson 1992, Goldsworthy et al., 2002), but identifying individual

animals that repeatedly cause damage or threaten the safety of any person and removing those animals is imperative.

The set of laws governing natural resource use is implemented by a vast number

of agencies, at federal, state, and local levels (Eagle et al., 1997). These complexities

were magnified when the State of Washington requested to lethally remove individual pinnipeds identified repeatedly returning to the Ballard Locks to depredate

ESA protected steelhead salmon. No sea lions were lethally removed. They were

transferred to captive care, but the process leading to the final determination of removing the animals, took years. This example shows how the system is currently

too complicated and time-consuming, and requires considerable resources. That

process does not work.

Clearly there are significant losses to sea lions in the fishing industries, these

business operators should be compensated for their losses due to overabundant sea

lions when no legal, effective deterrents are available.

We also support the recommendations for reducing pinniped interactions outlined

in the 1997 Report to Congress:

(1) Implementing site-specific management for California sea lions and Pacific

harbor seals.

(2) Develop safe, effective non-lethal deterrents.

(3) Selectively reinstate authority of the intentional lethal taking of California sea

lions and Pacific harbor seals by commercial fishermen to protect gear and

catch.

(4) Additional research and development of all these issues.

REFERENCES

Beeson, M. & Hanan, D. (1986). An Evaluation of Pinniped-Fishery Interactions in

California. Report to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

(PSMFC),unpublished.

Carretta, J., Muto, M., Barlow, J., Baker, J., Forney, K. & Lowry, M. (2002). U.S.

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. U.S. DOC NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-346Pages.

CDFG. 2000. California Commercial Landings for 1999.

CDFG. 2001. California Commercial Landings for 2000.

CDFG. 2002. California Commercial Landings for 2001

CDFG. 2003. California Commercial Landings for 2002.

DeMaster, D., Miller, D., Goodman, D., DeLong, R. & Stewart, B. (1982). Assessment of California Sea Lion Fishery Interactions. In D. Chapman & L.

Eberhardt (Eds.), Marine Mammals: Conflicts with Fisheries, Other Management Problems, and Research Needs (pp. 253-264). Washington, D.C.: Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,

1982. Published by the Wildlife Management Institute.

DeMaster, D. & Sisson, J. (1992). Pros and cons of pinniped management along the

North American coast to abet fish stocks. In D. McCullough & R. Barrett (Eds.),

Wildlife 2001: Populations (pp. 321-330). New York: Elsevier Applied Science.

Eagle, T., Scordino, J., Fangman, S. & Payne, M. (1997). Regulation of pinniped/

human conflict: a federal perspective. In G. Stone, J. Goebel & S. Webster

(Eds.), Pinniped Populations, Eastern North Pacific: Status, Trends and Issues.

A Symposium of the American Fisheries Society 127th Annual Meeting. August

28, 1997. (pp. 63-70). Monterey, California: Monterey Bay Aquarium and the

New England Aquarium.

Garrott, R., White, P. & White, C. A. V. (1993). Overabundance: An issue for conservation biologist? Conservation Biologist, 7(4), 946-949.

Golden, M. (1992). Marine recreational fisheries. In: California’s Living Marine Resources and their utilization. Eds W.S. Leet, C.M. Dewees and C.W. Haugen.

Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12.

Goldsworthy, S., Bulman,, C., He, X., Larcombe, J. & Littnan, C. (2002). Are seals

bad for fisheries and fisheries bad for seals? Trophic interactions between

pinnipeds and commercial fisheries in Australia. Paper presented at the Australian Society for Fish Biology. Retrieved July 3, 2002, from http://

www.asfb.org.au/pubs/2002/afsb 2002-18.htm

Hanan, D. (2002) California sea lion interactions with live bait receivers initial investigation into problems, impacts and solutions. Contract Report

40ABNF101546. Available from U.S. DOC NOAA NMFS SWR 501 Ocean Blvd.,

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.

Hanan, D. & Fluharty, M. (1997). Sea lion interactions in the commercial salmon

troll and commercial passenger fishing vessel fisheries. In G. Stone, J. Goebel

62

& S. Webster (Eds.), Pinniped Populations, Eastern North Pacific: Status,

Trends and Issues. A Symposium of the American Fisheries Society 127th Annual Meeting. August 28, 1997. (pp. 116-123). Monterey, California: Monterey

Bay Aquarium and the new England Aquarium.

Hanan, D., Jones, L. & Read, R. (1989). California sea lion interactions and depredation rates with the commercial passenger fishing vessel fleet near San Diego.

CalCOFI Reports, 30122-126.

Harvey, J. & Weise, M. (1997). Impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor

seals on salmonids in Monterey Bay, California. In G. Stone, J. Goebel & S.

Webster (Eds.), Pinniped Populations, Eastern North Pacific: Status, Trends

and Issues. A Symposium of the American Fisheries Society 127th Annual

Meeting. August 28, 1997. (pp. 71-89). Monterey, California: Monterey Bay

Aquarium and the New England Aquarium Publisher.

Manning, L. (1989). Marine mammal and fisheries conflicts: A philosophical dispute.

Ocean and Shoreline Management, 12:217-232.

Marine Mammal Commission. 2001. Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report to

Congress 2000. MMC, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 905, Bethesda, Maryland

20814.

Miller, D., Herder, M. & Scholl, J. (1983). California marine mammal-fishery interaction study 1979-1981. U.S. DOC NOAA NMFS SWFSC Administrative Report, LJ-83-13(c), 233.

N.M.F.S. (1997). Investigation of scientific information on the Impacts of California

sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystem

of Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. DOC NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-28172.

Pacific Fisheries Information Network. (PacFIN) 2002. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. http://www.psmfc.org/pacfin

Recreational Fisheries Information Network (RecFIN) 2003. Ed. Wade Van Buskirk.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission http://www.psmfc.org/recfin

Thompson, C. and S. Crooke. (1991). Results of the southern California economic

sportfish survey 1989. Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-164.

Wiese, M. & Harvey, J. (1999). Food habits of California sea lions (Zalophus

californianus) and their impacts on salmonid fisheries in Monterey Bay,

California. MLML Publication, No. 99-01((Fishermen’s Alliance of California

Contract No. 23-1509-7400)), 24.

Yodzis, P. (2001). Must top predators be culled for the sake of fisheries? Trends in

Ecology and Evolution, 16(2), 78-84.

63

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. It is interesting that you talk about culling not being a solution or part of that, and when you look at management of the entire population, I am interested to find out from

all the members of the panel what do you do when you reach a

point of over-population?

I mean, what should we do, and maybe I will start with you, Mr.

Stewart. When you look at the California sea lion as an example,

what do you do when you have a population, an over-population

point in certain areas?

And how should we deal with that? What management tools

should we use, and when you look at the Federal and State agencies, and what their responsibilities are, how should we deal with

that?

Mr. STEWART. I think it is a good question that we have all

thought about, but the issues are really with the implementation

of the Act as it was created, and the original intent and the spirit

of it, which did contemplate at least the potential for populations

to reach that level without really having the tools.

So the key thing is to really have I think more creativity in defining some of these tools. But we really don’t seem to have them

for the local issues, which are where most of these conflicts come

up.

64

The overall population control issues, we have some examples

from terrestrial habitat, from terrestrial species of birth control

that have worked variously successfully or not, and so that has not

really been explored.

But the issues off California are not unique in the world. There

are several populations around the world that have recovered similarly, even from very low levels, or similar low levels to now in the

couple of millions in places, and where there is some culling, but

I think Doyle is right. It is not a solution here.

It will be tremendously unpopular and it has been so far to even

have dialog about it, but the problems are local, and with a small

proportion of the population. So the creativity that is needed in addressing some of these local issues needs to be and continues to be

supported and facilitated through the MMPA and its implementation.

Mr. POMBO. Now, it is obviously a difficult issue to deal with,

and something that we are struggling with, because obviously there

are populations which are endangered, and I think deserve a certain level of protection. But you have different populations which

not only are not endangered. They are over-populated.

And how do you deal with those differences, and Mr. Lecky,

maybe you can help me with that, in terms of should there be a

different level of protection when you are talking about an endangered species and endangered population, versus one that not only

has recovered, but is in the state of over-population. Should there

be—when we look at the Marine Mammal Protection Act, should

there be differences in the level of protections?

Mr. LECKY. I think, Congressman Pombo, if you actually look at

the statute, it does contemplate that and allows for it in Section

118, which regulates the incidental take of marine mammals in

commercial fisheries.

There are different levels of take allowed, depending on the status of the population, and the potential biological removal levels

that are calculated and factored in, and whether the population is

at OSP, in which case you can virtually assign removal of all of the

production in terms of mortality, versuspopulations that are endangered, where 90 percent of their production is reserved for population growth.

But also our mechanism in the statute that allows for the States

to apply for resumption of management once populations are at

OSP levels, where States could implement consistent with the overall principles of the statute, local controls, and deal with some of

these local problems on their own.

And I think that the 1994 amendments to the statute liberalized

the harassment provisions of the statute, and actually broadened

some of the lethal removal exceptions to allow dealing with at least

these really aggressive animals that we are seeing today.

So I think that there are mechanisms in the Act that we could

pursue. We could probably use some additional policy guidance in

terms of deciding whether or not we are going to sacrifice beaches

to marine mammals, and how aggressive we can be in areas like

Monterey and other marinas where we are having problem animals.

65

Mr. POMBO. Can you address that and what at least to me appears to be a different level of enforcement or a difference in implementation of the Act between Monterey, as an example, and La

Jolla?

Mr. LECKY. Let me set a context first, because I think in situations where populations are healthy, and they are at or near OSP,

and expansion of the population on to new beaches is not essential

to maintaining the health of that population.

That is the context that we find ourselves in, and in those areas

really the solution to these problems in my view ought to be locally

driven and not mandated from the Federal level. So we have been

working with the local interests.

In Monterey, there is a broad interest and recognition that we

need to deal with that problem and continue to provide access. We

need to deal with the problem of these animals damaging private

property and boats.

We need to deal with the fact that they are actually impeding

perhaps public safety by not allowing the Coast Guard to get to

their rescue vessels fast enough. Those are all things that the public says needs to be addressed, and so there is a consensus there.

And in San Diego, that is not the case. You only heard half of

the story here this morning. There is a contingent of folks in San

Diego that feel like Children’s Pool is special. It is the only mainland haul out of Harbor seals for over a hundred miles.

There are thousands of tourists that come down to look at the

seals every year, and some folks contend that that has an economic

benefit that actually offsets the loss of the ability for access there.

So there is a local debate going on about what is the best way

to manage this pool. I think we could support decisions to go either

way given the tools that are in the statute. The animals clearly are

causing water quality problems, public health problems.

There is an argument that you might decide to remove them for

that reason. There is also an argument that you want to protect

this population because it is special being on the coast and so far

south. And that also is consistent with I think the statute and the

way it goes.

The solutions that I think are not appropriate are the shared use

concepts, because they do create internal conflictswithin the statue.

They do expose people to getting written up for harassing animals

or worse, and they do expose people to risk of injury from interacting with these animals.

So I think we have been trying to work with the local government for the last couple of years to come up with a solution that

will work at Children’s Pool. I think in some responses that they

have set the stage for the answer that they wanted when they designated the off-shore rocks as a marine mammal reserve, and invited those animals into the area.

So on the one hand, they have got these local regulations that

say that these are special animals and they need full protection,

and this is a reserve. On the other hand, they have got a contingent that wants to move the animals out of the area. So my view

is that they need to resolve their local conflict.

66

Mr. POMBO. Is that a case where you would defer to local decision or consensus locally in terms of how to handle it as long as

it is within the—

Mr. LECKY. Yes. As long as the answer that they come up with

is consistent with the overall purposes and goals of the Marine

Mammal Act and does not create problems for the public in the

way that it is implemented, I think we would give great deference

to the local solution.

Mr. POMBO. And maybe you can answer this, or maybe Dr. Stewart, I’m not sure, but before they moved into the Children’s Pool

where were they?

Mr. LECKY. Well, there probably has been some increased immigration from outside areas, but there is a reef not too far away

from Children’s Pool where they animals were hauling out on the

rocks at low tide.

Mr. POMBO. And I know that you are waiting for a local consensus on this, but it seems to me like maybe they would stay on

those rocks, versus being in the pool, and that maybe that would

be the compromise in this position. I mean, is that an acceptable—

Mr. LECKY. Well, if an acceptable program were put in place to

harass the animals off the beach consistently that they would go

somewhere, and some of them would go to those rocks. I think the

capacity of those rocks is probably less than all of the animals that

are there now, and so they might disperse to further off-shore

rocks, or who knows where they could wind up. They could even

go out to the Channel Islands for that matter.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Brown, your testimony is very interesting, and

I looked at a little bit on what your background was, and obviously

you have spent a great deal of time on this particular issue over

the years.

But one of the things that you testified to was about the impact

on endangered species and can you expand upon that a little bit,

because in endangered species hearings that we have had in the

past, we have had some real conflicting testimony about what the

impact is of the seals or sea lions on endangered salmonids, and

I would like to have your input on that.

Mr. BROWN. Sure. Chairman Pombo, I guess I would start out by

saying that I think as I mentioned that there are a lot of efforts

under way, not only in Oregon, but in other States on the West

Coast, in efforts to recover depleted and depressed stocks of salmon

and steelhead, many of which are either federally listed under the

ESA, or listed under State Endangered Species Acts.

Habitat recovery restrictions on that agriculture, land use by private property owners, and improvement of water quality, water

flow, water temperatures, thin stream water rights questions and

so on, and on, and on, and on, and restrictions of harvest and

changes in hatchery production operations and so on.

There are quite a few people—and there are a fair number of our

constituents—that feel that we also need to be looking at the possible negative effects of pinniped predation, and predation by other

natural predators on the recovery of these stocks, and where so

much time and energy, and money is going into trying to recover

those stocks.

67

It has been our experience I think looking at this issue for not

too long of a time. We have really been focusing on it for only say

the past 5 or 6 years, the question of specific effects of seals or sea

lions in localized situations on particular stocks of fish.

We have kind of seen results in our working group that are all

over the board. In some cases, it looks like there may not be an

impact on the stock of fish in a particular study area with a particular predator, whether it is seals or sea lions.

And in other cases it looks like there may be predation levels

that occur from the 5, to 10, to 20 percent or more of a returning

stock of adult migrating fish.

Then the question really becomes then I think for our fisheries

managers is are those levels of proposed or postulated loss significant enough to where we want to propose some sort of management

action that would reduce the level of predation, at least during a

period when fish are recovering.

Again as I stated, we clearly recognize that these animals have

co-existed successfully for a long, long time, and our focus is primarily on local situations where we have hundreds and sometimes

thousands of seals, hundreds of sea lions in smallcoastal water bodies that are preying on fish, salmon and steelhead moving up some

of our smaller coastal streams.

Where we are looking to recover estimating spanning population

of maybe only several thousand fish. So those are the areas that

we are really focusing on, and we really are trying to make some

determinations about the impacts that these animals might have

on slowing recovery.

We have worked with fish population modelers and they are telling us that if predation levels occur at this level, then this is how

much longer it would take for a stock to recover, for example.

And we want to be able to share that kind of information with

as many of the decisionmakers as we possibly can, and try to get

the ideas of predation of these very, very healthy and abundant

animals into the bigger picture of recovering some of these fish

stocks.

Mr. POMBO. Well, that is an issue that we have been dealing

with for a number of years and I had the opportunity to go watch

at the mouth of the Columbia River as the salmon were coming

back in, and sea lions or seals were out there catching them as fast

as they possibly could, and it was all done in the context of an endangered species hearing.

And all of the problems and challenges that everybody had, and

there were obviously a lot of questions that were raised at that

point, and I am looking forward to the results of your studies as

it continues to build, because that is an issue that not only affects

marine mammals, but affects endangered species as well. Mr.

Cunningham.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I sit in a lot

of hearings, but to me this is one of the more interesting hearings,

because I am learning a lot about an area that I am not entirely

familiar about.

So I have got some questions, and it is not directed at anybody.

It is to expand my own knowledge on this. From the testimony that

I heard earlier by Mr. Lecky, and Mr. Brown, when we talked

68

about inconsistency of the agencies and how the laws are enforced,

should a person that loses his surfboard and goes into this area

and gets his surfboard, and not intending to harass anybody, but

to get his surfboard, should that individual be fined according to

the agencies?

Mr. LECKY. I suppose that I should answer that question. I really

can’t comment on the particulars of that circumstance, because I

am not aware of them all. On its face, it sounds—

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would presume that you would be the one

that would.

Mr. LECKY. Well, on its face it does sound unreasonable. I will

acknowledge that. But the issue of incidental harassment is one

that is prohibited in the statute, and so the fact that you are just

walking down on the beach and scaring animals off of the beach

in some contexts can be harmful to animals.

It can cause separation of females and pups, and the like, and

so the statute does contemplate that that is an activity that needs

to be regulated. So in this circumstance, where an individual had

a choice of perhaps not being able to get back to the beach, or

harassing animals in an effort to save his own life, then I think he

probably was within the bounds of doing the right thing, and

should not have been punished for that.

But I don’t know all of the particulars of that case, and clearly

people going down on the beach to sit and sun themselves, where

they are going to chase animals off the beach is something that is

inconsistent with the current language in the statue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, maybe you have answered it, but I used

to go down with my children when they were just little ones, and

they are all grown up now. One has graduated from college and the

other one is a senior at Yale.

But I used to take them down and look at the tidal—we used to

go down to Scripps Oceanographic and look in the aquariums and

stuff, and show them the sea life. Then we would go down to La

Jolla to the cove there, and we would look in the tidal pool.

We wouldn’t allow them to touch them, but there was actually

people that would teach my children that were down there, volunteers would show the children that this is a star fish, and this is

a little abalone that lived in a tidal pool, or this is an octopus, and

don’t touch it. It will bite you.

And if I did that today, the same thing that I was doing 15 or

20 years ago, I would be arrested; is that correct, by going down

and if I scare an animal off, say, Children’s Beach there, or the

tidal pools, and as I go down to show my children this thing, I

wouldn’t, because I went down there and I saw the defecation on

there.

And I would not have my child down there. I would be afraid of

disease. But if I was to go down there and show them, I would be

arrested today for something that I did 15 years ago. And again I

have listened to the testimony, but it used to be 10 to 30 seals in

La Jolla. Now there is 180 to 200 animals there.

And you say that the rocks may not support them, but if there

were only 30 seals there as historically, instead of the growth and

population, maybe they could move. And when I went down there,

69

there were seals from time to time. Not every time I went down

there.

But I would see a seal go in the water when I walked down

there, and evidently what I did in the past, I can’t do today. Is that

true?

Mr. LECKY. Yes, I think it is. If you are down there and you disturb those animals off the beach, then likely you would be subject

to a fine for illegally harassing animals. I think part of the message here though that you are getting at in my view is that there

is a lack of clear guidance and policy on deciding whether or not

in these circumstances that we want to give these beaches over to

increasing pinniped populations.

I don’t know if you saw Dr. Stewart’s slide on elephant seals at

Piedras Blancas, but there was a similar situation up there, where

elephant seals had moved on to a beach, and the number of pups

born on those beaches has gone from a few tens of animals to

breeding thousands.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Is there a breeding period like most animals

have?

Mr. LECKY. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You know, I hunt, and I hunt white tail deer,

and so on up in Oregon, and the population of white tail there has

been devastated from disease. I mean, I will go up there and visit

a friend of mine up there in Roseburg, and I will see 200 deer, and

they can’t even hardly walk. They are so sickly because they were

protected, and interbred and everything else.

And I see the same possibility here, but with the seals, when I

would go down there, if there is a specific period would it be a compromise not to let anybody go down there during the whelping period so that pups aren’t separated when they are at that age,

versus that surely not 12 months out of a year.

And also would it not be reasonable to limit the number of seals

or have management at least control the number so that we can

go back and live in harmony with the seals like we did when I took

my children down there, versus the over-population, to allow the

agencies to say, hey, guys, go down there and live on the rocks and

not here.

Because I also serve on the Labor and HSS committee, which I

fund NIH, and we have doubled medical research. But we also look

at disease, like hepatitis, like HIV. I had a little girl in my district

die of E-coli from fecal material, and I want to bring them in and

see what is the public health aspects of having—I don’t want people defecating on my beaches. I will tell you that I would stop them

right now.

Now, you can’t stop a cow from defecating in a dairy farm, but

there is a specific area, and it is not public. But in a public area,

I don’t want my children walking through that stuff and it should

be stopped, or at least limited to where we can go back in harmony

like we did 10 or 15 years ago when I would go down there.

And have a limited number of seals there in harmony, but if I

walked down there in a non-whelping area, and a seal goes in the

water, that’s fine. I will tell you what. If a lion came into the area,

I might go in the water, too, and I think that would be natural,

and it would probably be self-preservation.

70

Mr. LECKY. Congressman Cunningham, we do have an example

of public beach in Hood Canal, where we excluded Harbor seals in

order to protect public resource. There is interest in an recreational

climbing beach, where the E-coli count had gotten so high that public health officials closed the recreational harvest to clams.

We excluded animals from those beaches by building fences out

into the marine environment for over a period of 2 years. So I think

there are tools in the statute where we can make those kinds of

decisions and support them.

But this concept of share use in my view is not consistent with

the existing statutory structure and really isn’t probably very practical.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And I think that is the whole issue and that

is the reason that I tried to bring that conversation to this, and

what the Chairman is trying to do. How do we get with the different groups that have interests that want to save the animals.

I love to go down and see the seals with my family, but when

they get to a point of over-population that risks us not only from

personal attack, but risk us from disease—and I will tell you one

thing. I have got a boat in Washington, D.C., and in the evenings

I have got ducks that sit on the swim platform, and I will tell you

that they make a heck of a mess.

I mean, they are probably worse than these damn seals. Now I

go and squirt them with a hose. It doesn’t bother them. Some environmentalists will say that you are working with the psyche of this

duck, but I also have to squirt off the defecation of it, too.

So if I go squirt a seal and he goes in—I mean, we need some

consistency on this thing, and that is what I am taking a look at.

I will tell you what, like I said, my bill stopped off-shore oil drilling

because I didn’t want our beaches polluted.

But I sure don’t want our beaches polluted by pinnipeds or anything else, and we need to stop that for public health. If there is

a private property like we saw with these boats, it is going to stop.

I will do everything that I can to stop seals from damaging boats,

attacking people.

If you had a lion—look, I have seen—Discovery is one of my

favorite channels, and I see where bears come in the city and attack people, or even moose, and you have got to stop that. And you

need to stop this as well.

And there should be absolute consistency in doing this as well.

I also stopped fishermen from coming in—like I said, the tuna dolphin bill. We were depleting and we were killing subspecies—turtles, subspecies fish, and they were netting and they were throwing

back the shark finning and stuff.

And I will stop that, but I also in the name of public safety will

stop seals from attacking people or causing damage through disease or anything else. And all that I would ask from you and the

Chairman is to have some kind of balance.

And to figure out some number that existed 10 or 15 years ago

on those beaches, and let the seals live there. But if I walk down

and show my kids a tide pool, and one goes in the water—I mean,

that doesn’t hurt the seal.

Now, if there is a pup and he gets separated, yeah, it might, and

maybe we can have a term where those pups are so young that we

71

would not do that. And I think that is the balance that we are looking for here.

Now, maybe some groups say, hey, no. There is 180 to 200 seals

there. Don’t touch them. Well, I disagree with that. And there is

the other groups that say I want all the seals gone, and I disagree

with that also. I am just letting you know where I come from.

Mr. LECKY. I appreciate that, and I know Congressman Pombo

has been struggling with the definition of harassment, and we

would appreciate the opportunity to struggle along with him.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do, too. And I think that Fish and Wildlife

does a good job. I think at times that we fought extremists on both

sides for all of us, you and I both on both sides of this coin.

And all I am asking is somewhere to come in the middle with

the groups that want to save the seals, to the groups that want to

use the public beaches. And I thank all of you for coming and your

testimony, and I thank my colleague, Chairman Pombo.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. I just had one final

question that I would like the panel to respond to, and it is dealing

with the definition of harassment. And it is something that we

have really struggled over, in terms of what constitutes harassment.

And Congressman Cunningham is talking about if you walk

down to the beach and a seal jumps in the water, should that be

a regulated harassment; or should we have what many people are

pushing for, a higher level of harassment, where you actually run

the risk or the likelihood that there could be some change in the

behavior of the marine mammals.

And I would like to have some response to that, and let me

know—and I will start with Dr. Hanan, but just kind of give me

an idea of what you are thinking in terms of that.

Dr. Hanan. In my opinion, the level of harassment should be related to the status of the population that you are talking about.

Abundant sea lions and abundant Harbor seals, some harassment

is not going to affect that population as a whole. Some harassment

of a right whale could be significant. So I think that you need to

look at the status of the population that you are talking about.

Mr. POMBO. Now your response is kind of what I was getting to

before about differing levels of protection based upon the population. Dr. Stewart.

Mr. STEWART. I agree with Doyle, but there is a contextual issue,

too, about where the harassment takes place, not only in terms of

population size, but what is involved biologically.

And I think that the context is important in the thinking and the

distinction between areas like Monterey, where sea lions are

hulling out there seasonally, and La Jolla, and Children’s Pool,

which is a colony, and that’s why the beach was regulated more

heavily and closed off, because it is treated now just like any other

colony, like the colonies on the Channel Islands.

And I think clearly a disturbance out there by tourists or Navy

personnel would probably have a substantial impact long term, and

that would affect the status of the population, and that is what I

think was translated to La Jolla once the area was designated as

a colony and the harassment was limited.

72

At least year around, and I think the question of whether it

would have an impact on the population outside the breeding season would be an issue, and I think that is an open one, and one

that I think we really have not been thinking about much.

But the issue in Monterey has been resolved—and I think the

harassment—by consultation with NOAA Fisheries through a little

trap door in the MMPA that allows disturbance, directed disturbance for public safety issues.

And I think that was discussed or thought about, or contemplated, at La Jolla before the area was reclassified as a natural

colony, of disturbing animals. And that came up in the context of

a discussion about the pollution of the waters, and the closure of

the cove in La Jolla because of the high E-coli levels.

So there is a contextual issue that is very important, and the

MMPA does allow for harassment in some cases without going

through a full incidental harassment permit. But in other cases, in

San Diego’s, from what I understand of the city’s interest, is that

they would like a solution that allows for two things.

One, the cleaning up of the water in the pool that would allow

people to go in there and safety swim; and also shared use, and

that involves shared use of the beach, which is a more difficult

issue.

Regardless of how that goes forward with the city, there is still

the Federal issue of getting the incidental harassment permit to

allow shared use, because there certainly would be some of that involved, either seasonally or perhaps year around.

And that would have to go through the full public review, and

I think that is when we would see not just San Diego’s interest,

but the national interest in what the solution to this would be, but

perhaps give us some idea of what the solution might be for many

of these areas that are now being confronted with increasing

pinnipeds, East Coast and West Coast.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Would the Chairman yield?

Mr. POMBO. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. To be fair, the San Diego area especially with

Mexico and pesticides coming into our—you know, in Delmar, you

look at that river coming in, and when we are talking about pollution of the ocean, it is not just the seals. We have a major problem

with our beaches closing from fecal material coming down. You

know the highest fecal count river in the United States worse than

Alongapo? It is the Anacostia River coming out of Washington,

D.C., because every time it rains, that raw feces goes into the Anacostia, and they have got fish not dying of disease, but dying because the bacteria count is so high that it eats up the oxygen.

But we have a problem here with chemicals, with plants that are

not working, and I know that the Chairman is working on that as

well. But it is not just—I don’t want the pollution from a pinniped,

but I don’t want it from man either, and we need to balance what

we are doing.

And environmental groups are right. We need to do our job in

Congress and fund some of these things that stop the pollution of

our wetlands and the rest of it, and to control pinnipeds as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Brown, did you want to respond to that?

73

Mr. BROWN. Sure. I will make a few comments, Chairman Pombo

and Congressman Cunningham. I guess I would say that you

raised the question of driving seals into the water by walking down

the beach.

I mean, technically under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,

that is a violation of the law, and I guess technically in the most

stringiest definition of harassment, it is that as well. We also have

State statutes as to disturbance and harassment to wildlife, and including seals and sea lions.

Of course, in this case our laws are overridden by the Federal

law, but I would think that our State laws in many other States

would also want to ensure that forms of wildlife are not subjected

to undue levels and levels of harassment that would cause serious

problems.

I strongly support the idea of separate use and separate areas.

I have real problems with these ideas of thinking that we can do

the same kinds of things in the same areas, and that we can sit

on the beach with seals a little ways away, and that we won’t ever

have a problem, and everything will always be OK.

So I think that a lot of work has to go into figuring out how to

do that. One thing that we have talked about and of course it has

just been discussions, but most all of our coastal bays and estuaries

have dozens, and hundreds, and sometimes thousands of seals in

them.

And we have had discussions about, well, perhaps a better way

would be to have some areas where seals are highly protected, and

people can see them and visit with them, and enjoy them in that

case.

And then have other areas where systems are set aside for sport

or commercial fishing, or for commerce, or for other purposes.

Those are just discussions that we have had, and it kind of gets

back to that idea of separate use and separating some of these

things.

We would also support some way to sort of separate out kind of

levels of why harassment would occur. Obviously public health and

safety would be at the top of the list. Preservation of property, both

public and private, and then as you step down in certain areas, you

may restrict harassment levels on these animals more and more.

I guess I would say finally that we work with most all of our

ports up and down the coast, and private property owners, and

other groups, to try to have a heads-up approach to the type of—

well, I guess it has already been labeled the Children’s beach seal

problem.

We are trying to avoid that kind of a thing, and if we have seals

start to haul out on docks and certain marinas, and we communicate and discuss things with the port, and we say is this something that you want to try to avoid, well, let’s get ahead of it, and

under the current law we are allowed to disturb seals and sea lions

off of property like that that may be impeding the use that they

were intended for or causing destruction.

And we try to carefully work within the law and get ourselves

in a situation where we don’t develop these kinds of serious problems. It does not mean that we are going to be successful in every

case.

74

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Lecky, with you I think it is probably better if

you answer this one for the record.

Mr. LECKY. I was just going to try and avoid that, Congressman.

I now that my agency has testified in the past on this issue, and

so I will try and be careful.

Mr. POMBO. OK.

Mr. LECKY. I think where we have the most trouble with the harassment issue is in the area of unintentional harassment. And

looking down at the tide pool, we have problems in the national

seashore with abalone pickers chasing Harbor seals off the rocks,

for example.

And I think in trying to better figure out how to deal with unintentional harassment, I think we really do need to factor in issues

of what is the status of the animals that are being harassed, and

what is the status of the activities that they are engaged in that

they are being diverted from.

Are these sperm whales that are in the process of breeding, and

we are causing them not to breed. That is an important issue that

where unintentional harassment ought to be avoided, and we ought

to have tools to regulate activities that cause that kind of unintentional harassment.

I think the kinds of unintentional harassment, where we are inadvertently startling animals that are just in a resting position off

the rocks, and then they come back later, is something that does

not have a severe or adverse impact on the animal or its population. And we ought to have ways of tolerating that and being able

to distinguish between those kinds of impacts.

Mr. POMBO. I am very interested in your answer, and I don’t

know how I would word this yet. We are still trying to figure this

out, but I really do believe that there ought to be enough flexibility

in the Act that when you are going out and implementing it that

you can make those determinations.

Is this a highly endangered species when you are talking about

whales and some of our bigger problems, in terms of recovery;

versus sea lions or Harbor seals, and the situation that they are

in.

And in working with the scientists and in working with the biologists, and trying to figure this all out, it seems to be that there is—

and there is not unanimity, but there is a broad consensus that

there should be different levels of protection, and a different definition of what harassment is in different situations.

And we are trying to figure out how exactly we would put this

in legislative language so that it is not a time bomb for you guys

to try to implement when you get to that point, but I would like

to figure out a way to do that and give you the flexibility in implementation so that you can actually look at each situation differently, and have the flexibility to say that really does not impact

a sustainable population of that particular species in this area.

And therefore we can treat that differently than we do in other

situations, and I know that you try to do that, and I am not sure

how much real flexibility there is in the law, versus how much we

are trying to put into it.

But since we are in the middle of doing a reauthorization, I

would like to have as much input as possible, and your agency has

75

testified in the past on this, and I look forward to having the opportunity to continue to work with you guys to try to come up with

that.

And I know that this is something that the Subcommittee

Chairman, Mr. Gilchrest, has a definite interest in, because there

is differences between the West and the East, and there is differences in populations, and somehow the law has to reflect that

and I am concerned that it does not.

Mr. LECKY. I think we made an effort to go there with the designation of Level A and Level B, and I think we just need to continue to refine that, probably with some direction from you folks,

and probably with some additional policy and guidance that we can

construct on our own.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I want to thank this panel very much

for your testimony. I know that it was very interesting for me and

Mr. Cunningham to have the opportunity to pick your brains a little bit. So thank you very much.

I want to take this opportunity to again thank our host for allowing us the opportunity to use this facility for the members of the

audience who made the effort to be here, and listen, and I will tell

you that the record, the Congressional record, will be held open. I

will hold it open for the next 2 weeks to give people the opportunity

that want to submit testimony to be included as part of this hearing.

That can be submitted to the House Resources Committee, and

we will hold the record open to give everybody the opportunity to

do that. So thank you all very much for being here, and I thank

the panel, this panel and the previous panel, and the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ